OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Evaluation Report 

EPA Has Improved 

Five-Year Review Process 

for Superfund Remedies, 

But Further Steps Needed 

Report No. 2007-P-00006 

 December 5, 2006 
Report Contributors: Carolyn Copper 

Angela Bennett 

Jennifer Dwyer 

 Andrew Lavenburg 

 Madeline Mullen 

 Michael Owen 

Abbreviations 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-P-00006

Office of Inspector General December 5, 2006

At a Glance


Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

Prior studies have identified 

weaknesses in the Superfund 

five-year review process. 

We evaluated whether the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has improved 

the quality, completeness, and 

timeliness of five-year reviews, 

and what impact the review 

process has had on remedies at 

Superfund sites. 

Background 

EPA’s Superfund five-year 

review process examines the 

remedies at hundreds of 

Superfund sites where 

hazardous substances remain at 

levels that potentially pose an 

unacceptable risk. The purpose 

of the reviews is to determine 

whether remedies are, or will 

be, protective of human health 

and the environment. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Liaison at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/ 

20061205-2007-P-00006.pdf 

EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for 

Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps Needed 

What We Found 

Since our last review in 1999, EPA has taken actions to improve the five-year 

review process. These actions included issuing the Comprehensive Five-Year 

Review Guidance, providing training, and reducing the review backlog. While 

these actions have resulted in improvements, EPA needs to take additional steps 

to better support and communicate conclusions, continue to improve review 

timeliness, and provide fuller assurance that cleanup actions are protective of 

human health and the environment. 

While we did not conclude that remedies were unsuccessful at achieving 

protection of human health and the environment, our evaluation of a random 

sample of 39 five-year review reports issued between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2004 

showed that: 

• 21 percent did not fully support their protectiveness conclusions 

• 21 percent did not provide complete protectiveness conclusions 

• 21 percent did not have sufficient information to implement 

recommendations 

• 23 percent did not meet public notification requirements 

EPA has not assessed the overall impact of its five-year review process on 

implementing and performing remedies because a system to provide complete 

information on the results of reviews had not been implemented. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that EPA expand the scope of quality assurance reviews of fiveyear review reports, and revise guidance to more clearly define short- and longterm protectiveness determinations. To improve timeliness, we recommend that 

EPA evaluate the regions’ workloads and available resources for five-year 

reviews for meeting due dates. We also recommend that EPA use data in a new 

information system module to measure the effectiveness and impacts of five-year 

reviews. EPA generally concurred with our recommendations. The Agency will 

need to provide further details on its plans to address Office of Inspector General 

recommendations within 90 days. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

December 5, 2006 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies, 

But Further Steps Needed 

 Report No. 2007-P-00006 

TO: Susan Parker Bodine 

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 resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $530,299. 

Action Required 

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

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon 

actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to 

the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 566-0847 or 

roderick.bill@epa.gov; or Carolyn Copper, Director for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste 

Issues, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Bill A. Roderick 

Acting Inspector General 
EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies, 

But Further Steps Needed

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

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

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

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

Prior Evaluations and Agency’s Actions......................................................... 2 

Scope and Methodology................................................................................. 3 

2 EPA Needs to Further Improve the Quality and 

Completeness of Reviews.................................................................................... 5 

Actions Taken to Improve Five-Year Reviews................................................ 5 

Five-Year Review Reports Need Further Improvements................................ 6 

Supporting Documentation Not Maintained.................................................... 8 

Primary Causes for Quality and Completeness Problems Noted................... 9 

Conclusion...................................................................................................... 10 

Recommendations ......................................................................................... 10 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 11 

3 Progress Made in Completing Reviews Timely

But Further Improvement Needed ....................................................................... 12 

EPA’s Annual Planning Processes Generally Successful.............................. 12 

Majority of Reviews Conducted Timely, But Further Actions Needed............ 13 

Limited Resources and No Tracking Systems Caused Delays ...................... 14 

Conclusion...................................................................................................... 15 

 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 15 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 16 

4 Reviews Provide an Effective Oversight Mechanism, 

But More Data Needed.......................................................................................... 17 

Five-Year Reviews Identify Protectiveness Issues......................................... 17 

EPA Has Not Evaluated Overall Impacts of Five-Year Reviews .................... 18 

 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 19 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 19 

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

- continued -
EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies, 

But Further Steps Needed

Appendices 

A Details on Scope and Methodology..................................................................... 22 

B Details on Reports without Fully Supported or Complete 

 Protectiveness Conclusions ................................................................................ 25 

C Agency Response to Draft Report ...................................................................... 29 

D OIG Evaluation of Agency Response ................................................................. 40 

E Distribution ........................................................................................................... 44 
Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

This report focuses on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) fiveyear review activities for Superfund sites. Overall, we sought to determine how 

successful the five-year review process has been at assuring that remedies at 

Superfund sites are protective of human health and the environment. We 

addressed three questions: 

• How successful has EPA been at improving the quality and completeness 

of five-year reviews? 

• How does EPA identify sites requiring five-year reviews and ensure that 

the reviews are conducted timely? 

• What impact has EPA’s five-year review process had on the 

implementation and performance of remedial actions at Superfund sites? 

Background 

About 11 million people in the United States, including 3 to 4 million children, 

live within 1 mile of a Superfund site. Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as 

amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 

1986, requires EPA to review the remedies at Superfund sites where hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain onsite. These reviews are 

required to be conducted every five years. The purpose of five-year reviews is to 

evaluate the implementation and performance of remedies and determine whether 

remedies are, or will be, protective of human health and the environment. When a 

five-year review identifies problems or deficiencies with a remedy, EPA should 

ensure appropriate corrective actions are taken. 

EPA uses two types of five-year reviews: statutory and policy. Statutory reviews 

are required by CERCLA. These reviews are for sites where post-SARA 

remedial actions leave hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site. 

The initial trigger date for statutory reviews is the initiation of the first remedial 

action leaving contaminants on site. Policy reviews are not required under 

CERCLA, but are performed as a matter of EPA policy. These reviews are 

triggered by the date that remedial action construction is completed at a site. 

Policy reviews are required for sites where a: (1) pre-SARA remedial action 

1 
leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants onsite; or (2) pre- or 

post-SARA remedial action will allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, but requires five years or more to complete. Policy reviews are also 

performed for removal-only National Priority List sites where hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants were left onsite at levels that do not permit 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Both statutory and policy reviews 

should be completed within five years of their trigger dates, with subsequent fiveyear reviews completed five years after the prior review is issued. 

The five-year review process is the same for both types of reviews. The process 

is based on information obtained from decision documents, operational data, and 

input of those responsible for and affected by the actions at the site. The process 

includes several components, such as: 

• Community involvement and notification: Issue public notices 

announcing the initiation and completion of the five-year review, and 

provide results of the review in a local site repository. 

• Document review: Gather and review all relevant documents, data, and 

other information in support of the five-year review. 

• Site inspection: Conduct a site inspection to visually confirm and 

document the conditions of the remedy and the site. 

• Interviews: Gather additional information about the site through 

interviews with site personnel, regulatory authorities, local officials, 

and/or community action groups. 

• Data review and evaluation: Review and analyze the data collected as 

part of a technical assessment of the remedy and the site. 

• Protectiveness statements: Based on the technical assessment, make a 

determination as to whether the remedy is protective of human health and 

the environment. 

EPA regions generally conduct the five-year reviews, but they may also be 

conducted by States, Federal facilities, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or a 

contractor. In all cases, the components identified above are used to evaluate the 

performance and protectiveness of the remedy. 

Prior Evaluations and Agency’s Actions 

Prior reports by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Resources for the 

Future, a non-profit independent research organization, have identified 

weaknesses in EPA’s five-year review process. Specifically: 

• EPA OIG Report No. 5100229, Backlog Warrants Higher Priority for 

Five-Year Reviews, March 24, 1995: This report disclosed that only 

30 percent of the required five-year reviews were completed as of 1994, 

and predicted that the backlog would increase for Fiscal Years 1995 

through 1997. 

2 
• EPA OIG Report No. 1999-P-219, Backlog of Five-Year Review 

Reports Increased Nearly Threefold, September 30, 1999: This 

followup report concluded that: (a) the backlog of overdue reviews 

significantly increased since 1995, (b) 28 percent of five-year review 

reports evaluated did not include a conclusion on protectiveness of 

remedies or did not adequately support conclusions, (c) 50 percent of the 

reports reviewed with recommendations did not include sufficient 

information for the recommended actions, and (d) 63 percent of the reports 

were issued late. 

• Resources for the Future, in the publication Superfund’s Future, What 

Will It Cost, issued in 2001: This publication indicated that 32 percent of 

the 151 five-year review reports reviewed had protectiveness statements 

that were insufficiently substantiated or were questionable. 

In response to the findings and recommendations in these reports, EPA in 2001 

developed three initiatives to improve the management of its Five-Year Review 

program and the quality of five-year review reports. Table 1.1 summarizes these 

initiatives. 

Table 1-1. EPA’s Five-Year Review Initiatives 

Initiative Major Actions 

Improve the Quality and 

Consistency of Reports 

• Complete and implement the Comprehensive 

Five-Year Review Guidance. 

• Develop and provide five-year review training 

to EPA staff in the regions and others involved 

with the reviews. 

• Conduct quality reviews of selected five-year 

review reports prepared by each EPA region. 

• Clarify and reaffirm protectiveness statements 

for reports questioned by Resources for the 

Future. 

• Track corrective actions and recommendations 

in five-year review reports. 

Provide Public Access to 

Reports 

• Make completed five-year review reports 

available to the general public through the 

EPA regions’ Internet Web pages. 

Eliminate Backlog and 

Ensure Timely Completion 

of Overdue Reports 

• Ensure the Agency does not continue to add to 

the backlog, and clear the backlog by the end 

of Fiscal Year 2002. 

Source: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Memorandum on Five-Year Review 

Program Initiatives, August 27, 2002 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our evaluation from November 2004 to May 2006. We performed 

our evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the 

3 
Comptroller General of the United States. We considered the findings of prior 

EPA OIG reports and a Resources for the Future publication related to EPA’s 

Five-Year Review program. 

To evaluate the Agency’s Five-Year Review program, we interviewed managers 

and program staff from the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) and from 5 of EPA’s 10 regions. We also reviewed a random sample 

of 39 of 555 five-year review reports issued during Fiscal Years 2002 through 

2004. Our sample of 39 reports included at least 1 report from each of EPA’s 10 

regions. Further, we reviewed key documents and data supporting information 

presented in 28 of the reports in our sample (representing the 5 regions where we 

also conducted interviews), including Records of Decision, site sampling results, 

and site inspection records.1 

Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology. 

1

 Due to time and resource constraints, we could not visit all 10 regions and conduct detailed site file analyses for 

each of the 39 sites in our sample. Therefore, we selected 28 five-year review reports from our sample covering 

Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. Reports from these five regions were selected primarily because we sought to obtain 

geographical coverage for the eastern, central, and western sections of the nation. 

4 
Chapter 2

EPA Needs to Further Improve the Quality and 

Completeness of Reviews 

While EPA has taken actions to address quality and completeness issues 

identified in prior evaluations of the Agency’s five-year review activities, further 

improvement is needed. An analysis of a random sample of 39 completed fiveyear review reports showed the following: 

Table 2-1. Issues Regarding Reports 

Issue Percent 

Protectiveness conclusions not fully supported 21% 

Protectiveness conclusions incomplete 21% 

Information to implement recommended corrective actions insufficient 21% 

Reviews did not meet public notification requirements 23% 

Source: EPA OIG analysis of five-year review reports 

Further, 79 percent of the 28 reports examined for documentation did not have 

complete documentation for at least one of three supporting activities: public 

notices, interviews, or site inspections. The issues noted primarily occurred 

because EPA did not establish effective quality assurance processes, sufficient 

definitions for short- and long-term protectiveness conclusions, effective public 

notification procedures, and specific documentation requirements. We did not 

conclude that Superfund remedies may be unsuccessful at achieving intended 

protectiveness results. However, without complete and fully supported report 

information, EPA has less assurance that remedies at Superfund sites protect 

human health and the environment. EPA also has inadequate assurance that 

Congress and the public are accurately informed on the status of remedial 

actions.

2 

Actions Taken to Improve Five-Year Reviews 

Since 2001, EPA has taken several actions under its initiative Improve the Quality 

and Consistency of Reports to address issues identified by the EPA OIG and 

Resources for the Future. Specifically: 

2

 Five-year reviews are required, under Section 121 of CERCLA, to assure that human health and the environment 

are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. The Act requires that Congress be notified of the 

results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews. Additionally, as part of its 2001 

initiatives to improve the five-year review program, EPA committed to making five-year review results available to 

the public via the Internet. 

5 
• Guidance: OSWER developed and implemented the Comprehensive 

Five-Year Review Guidance during Fiscal Year 2001. This document 

supersedes prior EPA guidance for five-year reviews, and is designed to 

clarify EPA’s policy, facilitate consistency across regions, and note roles 

and responsibilities. 

• Training: OSWER conducted training covering the major components of 

the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance during Fiscal Years 2001 

and 2002. According to OSWER program staff, more than 300 remedial 

project managers in EPA regions received the training. 

• Reevaluations: The regions reevaluated the 48 five-year review reports 

identified by Resources for the Future as not having clearly supported 

protectiveness statements during Fiscal Year 2002. Based on the regions’ 

reevaluations, OSWER concluded no exposure issues existed at the sites. 

• Quality Assurance Reviews: OSWER has conducted quality assurance 

reviews of selected draft five-year reviews since Fiscal Year 2002 to help 

the regions meet guidelines outlined in the Comprehensive Five-Year 

Review Guidance. 

Five-Year Review Reports Need Further Improvements 

Although EPA has taken several actions since 2001 to improve the quality and 

consistency of five-year reviews, further improvement is needed. We did not 

conclude that the remedies at the sites we reviewed may be unsuccessful at 

achieving intended protectiveness results. However, our review of a random 

sample of 39 five-year review reports issued between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2004 

showed various issues, as discussed below. 

Reviews Contained Unsupported Protectiveness Conclusions 

Eight of the reports reviewed, or 21 percent, had remedy protectiveness 

conclusions that were not fully supported. EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year 

Review Guidance states that “the [five-year review] report should contain the data 

and information necessary to support all findings and conclusions.” See 

Appendix B for details on reports with unsupported protectiveness conclusions. 

Examples of insufficient support follow: 

• In one report, the information appeared to contradict the conclusion. The 

report stated that the remedy was implemented in accordance with the 

Record of Decision and remained “fully protective of human health and 

the environment.” However, the report also stated “...the current off-site 

extent of the contaminants is unknown. As such, the protectiveness of the 

ground water remedies is unknown... There is an urgent need for the 

evaluation of current ground water concentrations off-site....” 

6 
• The technical assessment in another report did not address all of the 

elements of the evaluation framework prescribed by the Comprehensive 

Five-Year Review Guidance. The technical assessment did not provide 

sampling data and other specific information to support the evaluation and 

protectiveness conclusions. Further, the Document Review section of the 

report did not cite any monitoring/sampling reports that covered the 

review period. 

• A third report disclosed that the erosion of an earthen dam at the site was a 

“serious issue that would potentially undermine the stability of the 

recovery well... and ultimately the dam itself.” The report identified this 

issue as impacting both the current and future protectiveness of the 

remedy. However, the report concluded the remedy was protective of 

human health and the environment and did not mention the dam stability 

issue in the protectiveness statement. 

Reviews Contained Incomplete Protectiveness Conclusions 

An additional eight reports reviewed, or 21 percent, did not contain all required 

elements for protectiveness conclusions. We found these protectiveness 

conclusions to be incomplete because they either did not cover all operable units 

at the sites (five reports) or did not address short- and long-term protectiveness 

(three reports). This condition existed for reports from 4 of the 10 regions. 

According to the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, a protectiveness 

statement should be developed for each operable unit at which a remedial action 

has been initiated. OSWER managers also specified that protectiveness 

statements should address both short- and long-term protectiveness. 

Further Improvement Needed with Recommended Corrective Actions 

Eight of the reports reviewed, or 21 percent, did not contain sufficient information 

to implement the recommended corrective actions, or did not provide 

recommendations to correct remedy deficiencies. While this is an improvement 

from OIG’s 1999 report, which showed that 50 percent of the reports with 

recommendations lacked sufficient information to implement the recommended 

actions, further improvement is needed. 

Six of the reports in our sample contained one or more recommendations that did 

not identify milestone dates, the responsible party for implementation, and/or the 

responsible oversight agency. This information is required by the Comprehensive 

Five-Year Review Guidance and is critical to ensuring recommendations are 

timely and effectively implemented. In one example, a report identified that the 

site was not achieving compliance standards in specific wells, and that the ground 

water gradient was not responding to specific measures taken to control the 

gradient. Followup actions were recommended for these issues, but the report did 

7 
not identify a responsible party, oversight agency, milestone dates, and the impact 

on current and future protectiveness. 

The other two reports did not include recommendations to address all issues that 

had a potential impact on the protectiveness of the remedy. For example, one of 

the reports disclosed that ground water system evaluation reports indicated that 

wells outside the remediation system were showing some degree of contamination 

and “the remedy [was] not functioning exactly as intended.” However, the report 

did not include a recommendation to address this issue. 

Public Notification Requirements Not Met 

Nine of the reports reviewed, or 23 percent, consisted of reviews that did not meet 

public notification requirements. In four reports, EPA or the appropriate five-year 

review lead agency did not provide public notifications of the commencement and 

completion of the evaluations. The other five reports were based on reviews 

where the applicable lead agency did not issue a public notice for the 

commencement of the review. The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance 

requires that public notices be issued before and after each review. These notices 

are important for informing the public about the five-year review process, 

obtaining public participation, and disclosing the results of the review. 

Supporting Documentation Not Maintained 

In addition to reviewing reports themselves, we reviewed documentation for 28 of 

the reports in our random sample. For 22 of those reports, or 79 percent, we 

found that the supporting documentation was not prepared and/or maintained by 

the regions for one or more major five-year review components: 

• Public notification details (25 percent of reports) 

• Details on interview with officials or others (32 percent of reports) 

• Site inspection details (64 percent of reports) 

As a result, we could not verify public notice, interview, and site inspection 

details in the reports. While technical data (sampling reports, monitoring plans, 

and operation and maintenance documentation) are the primary basis for the 

technical assessment and protectiveness determinations, these other major review 

activities help ensure that the review is based on complete information. 

The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance provides examples for 

conducting and documenting interviews and site inspections. The guidance also 

specifies that the regions “...should establish appropriate record keeping 

procedures to minimize efforts needed to gather all necessary documents for 

subsequent five-year reviews.” Therefore, maintaining documentation for fiveyear review supporting information should streamline the process for future 

reviews, especially in instances where there has been a change in remedial project 

8 
managers. Also, regional managers, independent reviewers, and the public cannot 

verify important details in the reports without supporting documents. 

Documentation supporting the details of the major components of the five-year 

review is critical to ensuring the quality and completeness of the reviews. 

Primary Causes for Quality and Completeness Problems Noted 

Although OSWER and the five regions included in our sample have quality 

assurance processes for five-year reviews, their processes have not been effective 

in ensuring the reviews met the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. 

OSWER has conducted quality assurance reviews on selected reports since Fiscal 

Year 2002; however, the reviews since Fiscal Year 2003 generally have been 

limited to regional requests. Our discussions with program managers and staff 

from the five regions identified that one region conducted quality assurance 

reviews on selected five-year review reports and the other four regions conducted 

reviews on all reports. We were unable to evaluate the scope and depth of the 

Agency’s quality assurance reviews because the reviews were generally not 

documented. However, the quality and completeness issues we identified show 

that the Agency’s quality assurance activities have not been effective. Therefore, 

OSWER needs to perform quality assurance reviews on a higher percentage of 

five-year review reports and the regions need to conduct more comprehensive 

quality assurance reviews. 

The primary cause for incomplete protectiveness statements in five-year review 

reports was that some region personnel believed having such determinations for 

each operational unit at a site was confusing and potentially redundant. While 

there may be similar protectiveness conclusions for different operational units at a 

site, the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance clearly requires that separate 

protectiveness statements be made for each operational unit at a site. Also, the 

guidance does not sufficiently define short- and long-term protectiveness 

determinations, which created inconsistencies in conclusions across regions. 

Regarding lack of public notifications, the regions had not established procedures 

to ensure that the notifications were issued. For example, in one region, remedial 

project managers did not always coordinate their reviews with the community 

involvement coordinator responsible for issuing public notifications. 

The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance does not include specific 

documentation requirements for five-year reviews. As a result, we found that the 

regions did not always ensure that public notices were included in site files. Also, 

some regions did not always consider interview and site inspection documentation 

to be necessary when they were highly involved at the sites. 

9 
Conclusion 

The purpose of five-year reviews is to evaluate implementation and performance 

of Superfund remedies and to establish appropriate corrective actions when 

problems with remedies are identified. Corrective action recommendations in 

five-year review reports have substantially improved since 1999 when our last 

report was issued. However, EPA needs to take additional actions to improve the 

overall quality and completeness of information and conclusions in five-year 

reports. While we did not conclude that these problems prevented remedies from 

achieving intended protectiveness results, the problems undermine assurances that 

remedies protect human health and the environment, and that Congress and the 

public are being accurately informed on the protectiveness status of remedial 

actions. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

2-1 Expand the Agency’s scope of the quality assurance reviews conducted 

under the initiative Improve the Quality and Consistency of Five-Year 

Review Reports. At a minimum, conduct quality assurance reviews for a 

representative sample of reports from each region. 

2-2 Revise the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance to more clearly 

define short- and long-term protectiveness determinations. Also, revise 

the guidance to include specific requirements for conducting and 

documenting quality assurance reviews of five-year review reports, and 

maintain documentation to support the information in the reports. These 

requirements should emphasize the need for: 

a) Report information that provides complete support for conclusions on 

remedy protectiveness. 

b) Complete information supporting recommendations, including 

milestones, oversight agency, and responsible party. 

c) Documentation supporting report information and quality assurance 

results. 

d) Regional quality assurance programs for five-year reviews that ensure 

the reviews are complete and fully supported, including site 

inspections. 

2-3 Communicate to the regions the need for: (a) public notifications for the 

commencement and completion of five-year reviews; and (b) 

protectiveness conclusions that address each operable unit at a site. 

10 
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

EPA agreed with Recommendations 2-1 and 2-3 and responded that increased 

review by Headquarters improves the quality and consistency of reports. The 

Agency did not agree with Recommendation 2-2, but described several efforts 

currently underway that appear to generally meet the intent of the 

recommendation. In its comments on Recommendation 2-2, the Agency said that 

interviews are not required by the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance 

and are only one of many community involvement activities to solicit feedback on 

the remedies being reviewed. We agree with the Agency’s comment on 

interviews and made appropriate modifications to the chapter and 

recommendation. Although the Agency described corrective actions taken and 

planned to address the recommendations, it will need to provide more specific 

details on these actions for Recommendations 2-1 and 2-2, as well as specific 

milestones for completing corrective actions for all three recommendations, 

within 90 days. 

The Agency also provided comments on our findings for some five-year reviews 

discussed in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the report. We made changes based on 

these comments as appropriate. 

The Agency’s complete written response is in Appendix C. Our evaluation of 

those comments is in Appendix D. 

11 
Chapter 3

Progress Made in Completing Reviews Timely 

But Further Improvement Needed 

EPA identified sites subject to five-year reviews through an annual planning 

process and successfully addressed a backlog of overdue five-year reviews. EPA 

has also improved the timeliness of five-year reviews, with 67 percent of the 

39 reports in our sample being issued on time. However, further actions are 

needed to ensure all reviews are completed within five years of their trigger date 

and recommended corrective actions implemented by due dates. The untimely 

reviews were primarily attributable to large workloads and turnover of remedial 

project managers. Late implementation of recommendations was primarily 

caused by the absence of formal tracking systems in the regions. The late reviews 

and implementing of recommendations resulted in delayed corrective actions that 

potentially impacted the protectiveness of some remedies. Also, EPA did not 

always timely inform affected residents and Congress on the effectiveness of 

remedies. 

EPA’s Annual Planning Processes Generally Successful 

OSWER and the regions identified sites subject to five-year reviews and 

extramural funding requirements through an annual planning process. This 

process includes review of EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) by the regions and 

OSWER to identify sites subject to review and their due dates. OSWER discusses 

and confirms each region’s review workload and necessary extramural funding 

requirements to support the workload for the year through planning meetings. 

Our comparison of five-year review tracking information maintained by the five 

regions we visited with five-year review data in CERCLIS for Fiscal Years 2002 

through 2004 indicated that EPA’s process to identify sites subject to five-year 

review is generally effective. With few exceptions, the review information 

maintained by the regions matched that in CERCLIS. The most significant 

exception was that one region’s tracking information did not include six Federal 

facility sites subject to the five-year review requirement, and although these 

reviews were omitted from the region’s tracking information they were still 

completed on time. 

Also, since 1999, EPA has been successful in reducing its backlog of overdue 

five-year reviews. Our 1999 evaluation identified a backlog of 143 reviews 

overdue by an average of 17 months. This backlog represented 40 percent of the 

reviews planned for completion through March 1999. As of the end of Fiscal 

Year 2004, CERCLIS showed a backlog of overdue five-year reviews for 14 sites, 

12 
representing only 2.5 percent of the five-year reviews planned for completion 

between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2004 (see Table 3.1). 

Table 3-1. Uncompleted Five-Year Reviews for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 

Region 

Number of Planned 

Reviews 2002-2004 

Number of Reviews 

Not Completed by 

End of 2004 

Percent of Reviews 

Not Completed by 

End of 2004 

1 50 0 0% 

2 70 1 1% 

3 75 4 5% 

4 65 6 9% 

5 115 0 0% 

6 34 0 0% 

7 36 1 3% 

8 20 1 5% 

9 43 1 2% 

10 47 0 0% 

Total 555 14 2.5% 

Source: EPA OIG analysis of data provided by OSWER 

Majority of Reviews Conducted Timely, But Further Actions Needed 

EPA also improved the timeliness of five-year reviews, with over two-thirds of the 

reports in our random sample being issued on time. However, further actions are 

still needed to ensure all reviews are completed within five-years of their trigger 

date and recommended corrective actions implemented by established dues dates. 

Our 1999 evaluation report disclosed that 63 percent of the 356 five-year review 

reports issued since the inception of the five-year review program were issued late 

by an average of 17 months. EPA has significantly improved its timeliness since 

then. Our random sample of 39 reports issued between Fiscal Years 2002 and 

2004 showed that 67 percent of the reviews were completed on time and 5 of the 

10 regions completed all reports in the sample timely. The sample also showed 

that the late reports were overdue by an average of 12 months (see Table 3.2). 

Table 3-2. Timeliness of Five-Year Review Reports 

Region 

Reviews in 

Our Sample 

Number of 

Late Reviews 

Range of Overdue 

Reports (months) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Total 

2 0 0 

7 4 6 – 25 

7 0 0 

6 2 7 – 11 

6 0 0 

2 2 12 – 27 

4 3 9 – 12 

2 2 8 – 60 

2 0 0 

1 0 0 

39 13 (33%) 6 – 60 

Source: EPA OIG analysis of five-year review reports 

13 
While reducing the number of untimely reports from 63 percent to 33 percent is a 

significant accomplishment, further improvement is needed. One review in our 

sample appeared to miss an entire five-year review cycle, and was completed 

approximately five years past its due date (we did not include this review in our 

calculation of average time overdue because we considered it an extreme case). 

The other 12 late reviews in the sample were completed an average of 12 months 

past their due date. The overdue reports contained 42 recommended followup 

actions that address remedy protectiveness and other site-related issues identified 

during the five-year reviews. 

We noted in our evaluation of the recommendations in 28 of the reports in the 

sample that for 43 percent of them, one or more of the recommended corrective 

actions were not implemented by established due dates. In 25 percent of the 

sample, implementation due dates were missed for recommendations addressing 

current or future remedy protectiveness issues. 

Limited Resources and No Tracking Systems Caused Delays 

Discussions with program staff from two of the five regions with untimely reports 

disclosed that the primary contributors to the delays were large Superfund site 

workloads for the remedial project managers and a turnover of those managers for 

some of the sites. OSWER managers told us that some regions, particularly those 

that conduct most five-year reviews using regional staff, view a shortage of staff 

resources as a significant issue. According to the OSWER managers, extramural 

funding (such as funding for work performed under contracts, grants, or 

interagency agreements) for five-year reviews is sufficient and available for all 

regions. In fact, some regions receive extramural funding to hire the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to assist with their five-year workload. However, the majority 

of regions have not chosen to use the extramural funding for five-year review 

commitments. 

Also, planned completion dates for some five-year reviews in CERCLIS were not 

accurate and may have contributed to delays. For five untimely reviews in our 

sample, CERCLIS showed planned due dates different than those in five-year 

reviews reports. CERCLIS identified some reviews as completed timely when 

they were actually up to two years overdue. An OSWER staff member indicated 

this discrepancy occurred because the data for many reviews were entered into 

CERCLIS retroactively. According to this staff member, all planned and actual 

completion dates for upcoming five-year reviews will be accurate, and OSWER 

expects the new CERCLIS 3 Module to correctly reflect all trigger dates and due 

dates for five-year reviews. The staff member said OSWER plans to fully 

implement the module during Fiscal Year 2006, and it will provide for each site: 

• Planned and actual due dates for five-year reviews 

• Protectiveness determinations 

• Descriptions of issues and recommended corrective actions 

14 
• Implementation status of recommendations 

We also found that the five regions in our sample did not have formal tracking 

systems for ensuring recommended corrective actions were implemented by 

specified milestones. Instead, the regions generally relied on the remedial project 

managers to track and resolve recommended corrective actions. As a result, there 

was not central regional visibility or awareness of the status of recommended 

corrective actions and the effectiveness of those actions in addressing issues 

identified by the five-year reviews. 

Conclusion 

EPA has made substantial progress in addressing the backlog of five-year reviews 

and improving the timeliness of reviews since our last report in 1999. However, 

additional improvement is needed to ensure all reviews are completed timely and 

recommended corrective actions are completed by established due dates. The late 

reviews and implementation of recommendations resulted in delayed corrective 

actions. OSWER should evaluate the regions’ workloads and available resources 

for conducting five-year reviews through annual planning with the regions. 

Extramural funding should be used to obtain additional resources for conducting 

five-year reviews where insufficient EPA staffing will delay completion of 

reviews. The new CERCLIS 3 Module, once tested and fully implemented, 

should assist the Agency with tracking and followup of five-year review 

activities, including implementation of recommendations. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

3-1 To assess discrepancies or gaps in resources, evaluate annual five-year 

review workloads and available resources as part of the annual planning 

process with the regions. Communicate to the regions that the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers or other contractor sources should be used for reviews 

where insufficient staffing or changes in remedial project managers will 

delay completion. 

3-2 Work with region officials to correctly identify five-year review due dates 

and enter these dates into the new CERCLIS 3 Module. 

3-3 After testing and validation of the CERCLIS 3 Module, monitor the status 

of five-year reviews and the recommended corrective actions established 

by completed reviews using the module and ensure they are completed by 

specified due dates. 

15 
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

EPA generally agreed with our recommendations. Although the Agency 

described corrective actions taken or planned to address the recommendations, it 

will need to provide more specific details on these actions as well as specific 

milestones for completing corrective actions for the recommendations within 

90 days. 

With regard to Recommendation 3-1, the Agency commented that discussions on 

five-year review workloads and resources have been included in the annual 

planning process with the regions for the last few years and priority funding is 

provided to five-year reviews to ensure they are completed on time. We agree 

with the Agency’s comment. However, we found that the Agency’s current 

planning process has not been completely effective in assuring that sufficient 

resources are allocated to five-year reviews. Therefore, EPA will need to more 

effectively evaluate the regions’ five-year review workloads and resource 

requirements during the planning process. 

The Agency said in response to Recommendation 3-2 that it has aggressively 

undertaken a data quality effort to ensure CERCLIS 3 reflects correct due dates 

for all planned five-year reviews. Regarding Recommendation 3-3, the Agency 

said that the need to promptly input five-year review report issues and 

recommendations into CERCLIS 3 was discussed with the regions and that 

regional branch chiefs agreed to review and verify progress for recommendations 

that affect protectiveness at least twice a year. We are encouraged by the 

Agency’s comments on Recommendations 3-2 and 3-3. However, the Agency 

will need to provide more details on its corrective action for Recommendation 

3-2. The Agency’s corrective action for Recommendation 3-3 does not 

completely address the recommendation. Therefore, the Agency will need to 

provide a more comprehensive corrective action or actions for the 

recommendation in the response to the final report. 

The Agency disagreed with a recommendation in our draft report to require 

regions to establish contingency plans that help ensure that five-year reviews meet 

due dates when there are changes in remedial project managers. The Agency said 

that it does not believe the activity is significant enough to require the 

development of a contingency plan. The Agency also said the regions can plan 

for any foreseen transition of project managers. Based on these comments, we 

removed the recommendation from the report and modified Recommendation 3-1 

to include consideration of remedial project manager changes as part of the annual 

five-year review planning process with the regions. 

The Agency’s complete written response is in Appendix C. Our evaluation of 

those comments is in Appendix D. 

16 
Chapter 4

Reviews Provide an Effective Oversight Mechanism, 

But More Data Needed 

Five-year reviews provide EPA with an effective mechanism to identify and 

address significant issues regarding the protectiveness of remedial actions for 

Superfund sites. However, EPA has not assessed the overall impact of its fiveyear review process on remedies at these sites. The Agency could not complete 

this assessment at the time of our review because a system to provide complete 

information on review results and recommended corrective actions had not been 

implemented. As a result, EPA has been unable to measure the effectiveness of 

its Five-Year Review program at assuring protection of human health and the 

environment. EPA’s new CERCLIS 3 Module, once tested and fully 

implemented, should assist it with evaluating the effectiveness of the program in 

the future. 

Five-Year Reviews Identify Protectiveness Issues 

Five-year reviews provide EPA with a mechanism to identify and address 

significant issues that impact the protectiveness of remedial actions at Superfund 

sites. The reviews enable EPA to make recommendations for corrective actions, 

and formally communicate site conditions to Congress and the public. 

Our evaluation of 28 randomly selected five-year review reports showed that nearly 

two-thirds (64 percent) identified issues and provided recommended corrective 

actions at sites. These reports provided a total of 79 recommendations. Thirty of 

these recommendations addressed issues that potentially impacted current or future 

protectiveness of the remedial actions. For example, one report included a 

recommendation to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study to identify 

alternatives for a failing remedy. The other 49 recommendations addressed less 

significant issues that did not appear to have an impact on protectiveness. 

In total, 29 recommendations (37 percent) from the 28 reviews we examined had 

been implemented as of September 2005. Many of the corrective actions taken 

addressed important remedy issues at sites. Examples of actions taken included: 

• Optimization of ground water extraction systems. 

• Approval of alternative remedial actions that may be more efficient or 

cost effective in reducing site contaminants. 

• Identification of new contaminants of concern and modification of 

sampling programs. 

• Completion of studies to examine new potential exposure pathways. 

17 
EPA Has Not Evaluated Overall Impacts of Five-Year Reviews 

Although five-year reviews are an important and required aspect of the Superfund 

program, EPA has not assessed the overall impact of the process on the 

implementation and performance of the remedies at sites. EPA had not done so 

because a system to provide complete information on the results of reviews and 

recommended corrective actions had not been implemented, but is expected to be 

by the end of Fiscal Year 2006. 

An OSWER manager and staff member agreed that five-year reviews were 

important. According to OSWER staff, the five-year review process provides an 

opportunity for reconsidering remedies proposed at similar sites based on failed, 

ineffective, or inefficient remedies identified as a result of five-year reviews. 

They also indicated the process assisted in discovery of new contaminants at some 

sites that otherwise could not or would not have been identified. Region staff 

indicated similar impacts, including the identification of new potential exposure 

pathways, and cited the public visibility of five-year reviews as an incentive for 

responsible parties to take corrective actions and avoid the negative public 

relations. 

The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance establishes an annual reporting 

requirement intended to inform OSWER on national progress of five-year 

reviews. The guidance requires that each EPA region submit a report annually to 

OSWER that identifies key five-year review information and results, including: 

(1) the sites subject to five-year reviews for that fiscal year; (2) a summary of 

issues, recommended corrective actions, implementation schedule, and 

protectiveness determination(s) for each site; and (3) the status of recommended 

corrective actions for sites from previous fiscal years. However, OSWER waived 

the reporting requirement for annual five-year review progress reports from the 

regions until the Agency’s new CERCLIS 3 Module is fully implemented. 

According to OSWER program staff, the new CERCLIS 3 Module, when fully 

implemented, will include the report information specified by the Comprehensive 

Five-Year Review Guidance and make the regions’ annual reports unnecessary. 

Although the CERCLIS 3 Module has been under development since 

approximately 2002, it had not been fully implemented at the time of our review. 

OSWER staff expects the module to be fully implemented in Fiscal Year 2006. 

The new module, once fully tested and implemented, should provide the data to 

measure the effectiveness and impacts of EPA’s five-year program. For example, 

the module should enable the Agency to measure the timeliness of reviews, 

number of reviews with protectiveness issues, timeliness of implementing 

recommended corrective actions addressing protectiveness issues, and 

actual/potential results from implementing recommended corrective actions. 

18 
Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

4-1 Fully implement the CERCLIS 3 Module, after testing and validation, for 

the five-year review program. Require the regions to comply with the 

annual reporting requirement specified in the Comprehensive Five-Year 

Review Guidance by populating the module with reporting data. 

4-2 Use CERCLIS 3 Module data to measure the effectiveness and impacts of 

EPA’s five-year review program, such as measuring the timeliness of 

reviews, number of reviews with and without protectiveness issues, 

timeliness of implementing recommended corrective actions addressing 

protectiveness issues, and actual/potential results from implementing 

recommended corrective actions. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

EPA agreed with our recommendations and responded that the CERCLIS 3 

Module has been updated and the second generation module has been in 

production since June 2006. The Agency also said significant progress has been 

made entering data into the module for five-year reviews completed since Fiscal 

Year 2003, which allows OSWER to track issues, recommendations, and 

progress. The Agency described corrective actions intended to address the 

recommendations, but these actions did not completely address the 

recommendations. The Agency will need to provide more specific details on 

actions taken and/or planned, as well as specific milestones for completing the 

corrective actions, within 90 days. 

The Agency’s complete written response is in Appendix C. Our evaluation of 

those comments is in Appendix D. 

19 
Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 2 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

2-1 

2-2 

2-3 

3-1 

3-2 

10 

10 

10 

15 

15 

Expand the Agency’s scope of the quality 

assurance reviews conducted under the initiative 

Improve the Quality and Consistency of Five-Year 

Review Reports. At a minimum, conduct quality 

assurance reviews for a representative sample of 

reports from each region. 

Revise the Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance to more clearly define short- and longterm protectiveness determinations. Also, revise 

the guidance to include specific requirements for 

conducting and documenting quality assurance 

reviews of five-year review reports, and maintain 

documentation to support the information in the 

reports. 

Communicate to the regions the need for: 

(a) public notifications for the commencement 

and completion of five-year reviews; and 

(b) protectiveness conclusions that address 

each operable unit at a site. 

To assess discrepancies or gaps in resources, 

evaluate annual five-year review workloads and 

available resources as part of the annual planning 

process with the regions. Communicate to the 

regions that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 

other contractor sources should be used for 

reviews where insufficient staffing or changes in 

remedial project managers will delay completion. 

Work with region officials to correctly identify fiveyear review due dates and enter these dates into 

the new CERCLIS 3 Module. 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

3-3 

4-1 

15 

19 

After testing and validation of the CERCLIS 3 

Module, monitor the status of five-year reviews and 

the recommended corrective actions established by 

completed reviews using the module and ensure 

they are completed by specified due dates. 

Fully implement the CERCLIS 3 Module, after 

testing and validation, for the five-year review 

program. Require the regions to comply with the 

annual reporting requirement specified in the 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance by 

populating the module with reporting data. 

O 

O 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

20 
Rec. 

No. 

4-2 

Page 

No.

19 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Subject Status1 

Use CERCLIS 3 Module data to measure the 

effectiveness and impacts of EPA’s five-year 

review program, such as measuring the timeliness 

of reviews, number of reviews with and without 

protectiveness issues, timeliness of implementing 

recommended corrective actions addressing 

protectiveness issues, and actual/potential results 

from implementing recommended corrective 

actions. 

O 

Action Official 

Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s) 2 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 

2 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

Identification of potential monetary benefits was not an objective of this evaluation. 

21 
Appendix A 

Details on Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our evaluation from November 2004 to May 2006 in accordance with 

Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our 

scope generally covered EPA’s five-year review activities during the period from Fiscal Years 

2002 through 2004. To gain an understanding of EPA’s Five-Year Review program, we 

interviewed managers and program staff from OSWER and Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. We also 

reviewed CERCLA, EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, and other program 

documents and records applicable to EPA’s five-year review activities. 

To assess management controls, we evaluated the Agency’s quality assurance procedures and 

records for five-year reviews covering this three-year period. We found that the Agency needs to 

enhance quality assurance activities to improve the quality, completeness, and timeliness of fiveyear reviews. 

We evaluated five-year review procedures for Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. We selected these 

regions primarily because we sought to obtain geographical coverage for the eastern, central, and 

western sections of the nation. We made site visits to these regions and reviewed documents and 

records relevant to their five-year review activities. In addition, we interviewed managers and 

staff from OSWER and Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 to answer all three of our objectives presented 

below. 

Our evaluation work took into account the findings of the prior reports noted in Chapter 1. 

To evaluate how successful EPA has been at improving the quality and completeness of fiveyear reviews, we selected a random sample of 39 five-year review reports out of the universe of 

555 completed during Fiscal Years 2002 and 2004 (see Table A-1 on next page). The sample 

included at least 1 report for each of the 10 regions. We evaluated the content of these reports to 

determine whether the reports met EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance and had 

fully supported conclusions on remedy protectiveness. For the 28 reports from Regions 2, 3, 4, 

5, and 9 in the sample, we also reviewed key site documents and data to verify the reports’ 

technical assessment information and protectiveness conclusions. The supporting documents 

and data reviewed included Records of Decision, site sampling results, and site inspection 

records. 

22 
Table A-1. Summary of Selected Details for Five-Year Review Reports in Random Sample 

Review 

Region Site 

Date Listed 

on NPL 

NPL 

Status 

Review 

Type 

Review 

Sequence 

Completion 

Date 

Review 

Lead 

1 Beacon Heights Landfill 09/08/83 Final Statutory Third 09/19/03 EPA 

Plymouth Harbor/Cannon’s 

Engineering Corporation 

09/08/83 Deleted Policy Third 09/26/03 EPA 

2 Higgins Farm 06/24/88 Final Policy First 09/29/03 EPA 

Caldwell Trucking 09/08/83 Final Statutory First 09/29/02 EPA 

Kin-Buc Landfill 09/08/83 Final Statutory Second 09/30/04 EPA 

Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 09/08/83 Final Statutory Second 09/30/03 EPA 

Chemical Insecticide Corporation 08/30/90 Final Statutory Second 12/29/03 EPA 

Old Bethpage Landfill 09/08/83 Final Statutory Second 09/30/02 EPA 

Naval Weapons Station Earle 08/30/90 Final Statutory First 02/09/04 Federal 

Facility 

3 River Road Landfill 10/04/89 Deleted Statutory First 09/30/04 EPA 

Chem-Solv 08/30/90 Final Policy First 09/26/03 EPA 

Rhinehart Tire Fire 06/10/86 Final Statutory Second 11/06/02 EPA 

Tyson’s Dump 09/21/84 Final Statutory Second 09/27/04 EPA 

Harvey and Knott Drum Site 09/08/83 Final Statutory Third 09/30/03 EPA 

Eastern Diversified 10/04/89 Final Statutory Second 02/12/03 EPA 

Woodbridge Research Facility Not on NPL Non NPL 

Federal 

Facility 

Statutory First 09/25/03 Federal 

Facility/ 

USACE 

4 Lewisburg Dump 09/08/83 Deleted Statutory Second 09/11/02 EPA 

Beulah Landfill 02/21/90 Deleted Statutory Second 09/25/03 EPA/ 

USACE 

Geigy Chemical Corporation 10/04/89 Final Policy First 09/23/03 EPA/ 

USACE 

Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile Creek/ 

Lake Hartwell Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls Contamination Site 

02/21/90 Final Statutory First 09/21/04 EPA 

Harris Corporation (Palm Bay Plant) 07/22/87 Final Statutory First 02/03/04 EPA 

Fort. Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry 08/30/90 Final Statutory First 08/08/02 EPA/ 

USACE 

5 Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke 09/08/83 Final Statutory Second 09/13/04 EPA 

Kummer Sanitary Landfill 06/10/86 Deleted Statutory First 03/13/03 State 

E.H. Schilling Landfill 09/08/83 Final Statutory Second 09/02/02 EPA 

Eau Clair Municipal Well Field 09/21/84 Final Statutory Second 09/27/02 EPA 

Springfield Township Dump 09/08/83 Final Statutory Second 09/24/04 EPA 

Velsicol Chemical Corporation 09/08/83 Final Policy Second 09/25/02 EPA 

6 Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery 03/31/89 Final Statutory Second 07/29/02 EPA 

French Limited 09/08/83 Deleted Statutory Second 03/12/02 EPA 

7 Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site 08/30/90 Final Statutory First 09/27/02 EPA 

Vogel Paint and Wax 06/10/86 Final Statutory Second 09/24/04 State 

Aidex Corporation 09/08/83 Deleted Policy Third 01/30/04 EPA 

Red Oak City Landfill 03/31/89 Final Statutory First 09/10/02 EPA 

8 Mystery Bridge Road 08/30/90 Final Statutory Second 09/27/04 EPA 

Whitewood Creek 09/08/83 Deleted Statutory First 07/17/02 EPA 

9 Fairchild Semiconductor- Mountain 

View Site 

02/11/91 Final Policy First 09/30/04 EPA 

TRW Microwave 02/21/90 Final Policy Second 09/30/04 State 

10 Standard Steel 08/30/90 Deleted Statutory First 04/23/03 EPA 

NPL National Priorities List 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Source: Five-year review data provided by OSWER 

23 
We also reviewed and evaluated tracking systems used by the five regions to monitor 

implementation of recommendations included in five-year review reports. The review included a 

review of available documents supporting the implementation status of recommendations 

included in the 28 reports in our random sample. Additionally, we reviewed quality assurance 

documents and records related to five-year reviews maintained by the five regions visited. 

To evaluate how EPA identifies sites requiring five-year reviews and ensures that the reviews are 

conducted timely, we tested EPA’s process for identifying sites subject to those reviews for 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004. We obtained the universe of sites subject to five-year reviews 

during these fiscal years from CERCLIS data provided by OSWER. We did not test EPA’s 

management controls for CERCLIS. However, we did test the accuracy of the universe through 

a comparison of the CERCLIS information with five-year review inventory information obtained 

from the five regions. We assessed the accuracy of five-year review dates in CERCLIS by 

comparing date information provided by the 39 reports in our sample with the review dates in 

CERCLIS. We also obtained input on the accuracy of the CERCLIS data for selected reviews 

from Agency managers and program staff. Additionally, we reviewed the CERCLIS data to 

identify reviews exceeding the five-year period specified by CERCLA and EPA policy. We 

classified reviews overdue by more than six months as being untimely. Our testing of the 

CERCLIS data did not reveal any significant discrepancies in the universe of five-year reviews. 

However, we found that some five-year review dates maintained in CERCLIS were inaccurate 

and that inaccurate dates may have contributed to untimely five-year reviews. This issue is 

discussed in Chapter 3. 

To evaluate impacts of EPA’s five-year review process on the implementation and performance 

at Superfund sites, we identified impacts of five-year review activities through an assessment of 

the issues and recommendations in the 28 reports from Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 in our random 

sample. We also reviewed available documents supporting the implementation status of 

recommendations included in the reports. 

24 
Appendix B 

Details on Reports without Fully Supported or 

Complete Protectiveness Conclusions 

Reports with Protectiveness Conclusions Not Fully Supported 

Eight out of 39 reports in our random sample presented protectiveness conclusions that were not 

fully supported. These reports either did not include enough information to support 

protectiveness conclusions, or presented information that did not support the conclusions. 

Plymouth Harbor/Cannon’s Engineering Corporation - Region 1 

The report identified that the site’s perimeter fence must be reconstructed and maintained to 

control access to the property. Although the report disclosed that inadequate access controls 

were an issue impacting current protectiveness, the protectiveness conclusion stated that the 

remedy at the site was currently protective of human health and the environment. 

Higgins Farm - Region 2 

The report’s technical assessment stated that wells outside the remedial system were showing 

some degree of contamination and the remedy was not functioning exactly as intended. Also, a 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ optimization study for the site stated that "the offsite extent of 

the contaminant plumes is unknown and there is a potential for impacts on ground water users ... 

the protectiveness of the ground water remedies is unknown.” Despite this information, the fiveyear review concluded that the remedial actions were protective. 

Chemical Insecticide Corporation - Region 2 

The technical assessment for this report did not address all of the elements of the evaluation 

framework prescribed by the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. Although the site 

included three operable units, the five-year review was based primarily on a recent Record of 

Decision for one operable unit under construction. Therefore, the protectiveness conclusion was 

not based on an evaluation of data and information for all operable units at the site. 

Tyson’s Dump - Region 3 

The report’s technical assessment did not address all of the elements of the evaluation framework 

prescribed by the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. The technical assessment and 

document review sections of the report did not provide sampling data and other specific 

information to support the evaluation and protectiveness conclusions. 

25 
Geigy Chemical Corporation (Aberdeen Plant) - Region 4 

The report stated the site remedy was protective of human health and the environment. 

However, the issues section disclosed that there was insufficient data to determine the impact of 

an off-site trichloroethylene contamination plume on the remedy. Further, interview information 

included in the report disclosed that an environmental engineer for the State of North Carolina’s 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources had some concerns about the undefined 

source of the trichloroethylene contamination plume and its potential effects on the remedy. 

Therefore, information in the report noting a concern about the future protectiveness of the 

remedy appeared to contradict the protectiveness conclusion. 

E.H. Schilling Landfill - Region 5 

The report concluded that the remedy was functioning as intended and protective of human 

health and the environment. However, the report identified erosion around the face of the dam 

onsite as a significant issue with the remedy. The report stated: "it was noted during the site visit 

that the erosion on the face of the dam was a serious issue that would potentially undermine the 

stability of the Recovery Well... and ultimately the dam itself.” While this issue did not directly 

impact human exposure to contaminants at the site, the report disclosed that it affected both the 

current and future protectiveness of the remedial action. Therefore, this issue appeared to 

contradict the report’s protectiveness conclusion. 

Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery - Region 6 

The report’s protectiveness conclusion included a statement that monitoring data suggested that 

the remedy was functioning as required and achieving ground water cleanup goals. However, 

the report also disclosed that site contaminants were present above action levels, and that data 

from current well locations may not provide sufficient information to assess the influence of offsite contaminant sources, horizontal migration of site-related contaminants, or natural attenuation 

of contaminants. This information appeared to contradict the protectiveness conclusion. 

Mystery Bridge Road - Region 8 

The protectiveness statement concluded that the remedy was protective of human health and the 

environment because the contaminated ground water at the site was not used by residents. 

However, the report’s technical assessment found that benzene concentrations in the ground 

water were a concern because they spiked up to 90 times the maximum contaminant levels 

during the first two years of the five-year review period. Further, the report disclosed that 

institutional controls prohibiting the use of ground water from the site were not in place even 

though they were required by the Record of Decision. Therefore, data and information presented 

in the report appeared to contradict the protectiveness conclusion. 

26 
 Reports with Incomplete Protectiveness Conclusions 

Eight out of 39 reports in our random sample had incomplete protectiveness conclusions. We 

considered the conclusions incomplete because they did not cover all operable units at the site 

and/or address both the short- and long-term protectiveness of the remedial actions. 

Old Bethpage Landfill - Region 2 

The report’s protectiveness conclusion was incomplete because it did not address both short- and 

long-term protectiveness of the remedy, despite identifying that a lack of institutional controls 

potentially affected the long-term protectiveness of the remedy. Because the report identified an 

issue affecting future protectiveness, the protectiveness conclusion should have addressed the 

lack of institutional controls and presented a statement for an operating remedy that was 

protective in the short term. 

Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 - Region 2 

The protectiveness conclusion for this report addressed the protectiveness of the remedies for the 

next five years, but did not address long-term protectiveness. The report’s technical assessment 

identified that further evaluation of the soil vapor intrusion pathway was necessary. Given the 

recommendation for further evaluation of this pathway, future protectiveness of the remedies 

should have been addressed by the report’s conclusion. Also, the report provided a site-wide 

protectiveness conclusion without addressing the protectiveness of each of the site’s two 

operable units. 

Kin-Buc Landfill - Region 2 

Although the site has multiple operable units in the construction complete phase, the report 

provided a site-wide protectiveness conclusion without addressing the protectiveness of each 

operable unit. Further, the report presented a protectiveness conclusion covering the next fiveyear period but did not specifically address long-term protectiveness of the remedy. 

Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

Contamination Site - Region 4 

The protectiveness conclusion for this report only addressed one of the two operable units at the 

site. The five-year review did not address the remedy for Operable Unit 1 as part of the technical 

assessment even though this unit was the source for the contamination in Operable Unit 2. 

Velsicol Chemical Corporation - Region 5 

The protectiveness conclusion for this report only addressed one of the two operable units at the 

site. Since both operable units have remedies either in place or under construction, the report 

should have addressed the protectiveness of the remedies for both operable units. 

27 
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke - Region 5 

A protectiveness conclusion for each of the three operable units at this site was not presented in 

the report. The report only provided a site-wide protectiveness conclusion. 

Kummer Sanitary Landfill - Region 5 

The report only provided a site-wide protectiveness conclusion. A protectiveness conclusion for 

each of the three operable units at this site was not presented in the report. 

French Limited - Region 6 

The conclusion for this report did not address future protectiveness of the remedy. The 

conclusion covered both the source control and ground water remedies and generally addressed 

short-term protectiveness. However, results discussed in the report, such as ground water units 

not meeting compliance criteria and unsuccessful measures to direct the onsite ground water 

gradient, were not identified in the protectiveness conclusion as issues that could potentially 

impact the long-term protectiveness of the remedy. 

28 
Appendix C 

Agency Response to Draft Report 

September 21, 2006 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: OSWER Response to the Office of Inspector General draft report “EPA Has 

Improved Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps 

Needed” 

FROM: Susan Parker Bodine/s/ 

 Assistant Administrator 

TO: Bill A. Roderick 

 Acting Inspector General 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the Office of Inspector 

General’s (OIG) Draft Evaluation Report entitled “EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review 

Process for Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps Needed.” We also appreciate the meetings 

with your staff to discuss your findings prior to issuance of the draft report. 

We agree that since the last review in 1999, EPA has taken actions to improve the fiveyear review (FYR) process. We issued the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, 

conducted training in all ten Regional offices and at NARPM meetings, significantly reduced the 

backlog of FYRs, and pursued the development and implementation of a tracking system for 

FYRs within the CERCLIS 3 application. 

We developed a comprehensive Five-Year Review web page 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/postconstruction/5yr.htm) which includes the 

“Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance;” an internet-based application that allows the 

public to search for Five-Year Reviews by state, site name, EPA ID, Region, keyword, or fiscal 

year; community involvement fact sheets; and “Questions and Answers” related to FYRs. 

We currently have a program review effort focused on documenting Regional processes 

for managing FYRs and implementing recommendations. The program review will summarize 

Regional management practices for tracking and conducting FYRs, implementation of FYR 

recommendations, and the usefulness of FYR guidance and training. In addition, the program 

review seeks to better understand Regional support needs and facilitate the sharing of FYR best 

practices nationwide. This program review is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2007. 

We also are taking steps to better support and communicate review findings, improve 

review timeliness, and provide greater assurance that cleanup actions are protective of human 

health and the environment. 

29 
Our attached response includes comments on the findings, agreement/disagreement with 

the recommendations, a summary of our recent accomplishments and planned corrective actions, 

and an action plan for implementing the recommendations. For the sites identified in Appendix 

B, we provide clarifying language submitted by the Regions for selected sites that may alter the 

percentages in the OIG’s final report. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Rafael Gonzalez at 

(703) 603-8892. 

Attachment 

30 
EPA Response to OIG Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-1 

Expand the Agency’s scope of the quality assurance reviews conducted under the 

initiative Improve the Quality and Consistency of Five-Year Review Reports. At a minimum, 

conduct quality assurance reviews for a representative sample of reports from each region. 

See Appendix D 

Note 1 

EPA Response 

We agree with the recommendation. As part of the initiative to “Improve the Quality and 

Consistency of Five-Year Reviews,” we initially reviewed a representative sample of draft fiveyear reviews from the Regions. We have continued to expand the effort and recently have 

reviewed approximately half of all five-year reviews planned or due during the fiscal year. We 

will continue to increase the number of draft five-year reviews evaluated under the initiative to 

ensure compliance with the guidance and improve supporting information in the reports. We 

agree that increased review by Headquarters improves the quality and consistency of reports. 

Recommendation 2-2 

Revise the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance to more clearly define short- and 

long-term protectiveness determinations. Also revise the guidance to include specific 

requirements for conducting and documenting quality assurance reviews of five-year review 

reports, and maintain documentation to support the information in the reports. These 

requirements should emphasize the need for: 

a) Information that provides complete support for conclusions on remedy protectiveness. 

b) Information supporting recommendations, including milestones, oversight agency, and 

responsible party. 

c) Documentation of supporting report information and quality assurance results. 

d) Explanations for excluding interviews of site personnel, regulatory officials, and local 

residents from the five-year reviews. 

e) Regional quality assurance programs for five-year reviews that ensure the reviews are 

complete and fully supported, including site inspections. 

See Appendix D 

Note 2 

EPA Response 

We do not agree with the recommendation because we have several efforts currently 

underway that accomplish the same result. 

31 
a/b) We are aggressively pursuing a refresher FYR training effort with the Regions, we 

have increased the number of draft FYR reports that we review, and have engaged in 

discussions with Regional managers to increase awareness of the need to have 

protectiveness determinations fully supported in the reviews. 

c) We agree that Regions should maintain documentation of support activities (i.e., site 

inspections and interviews) to verify these activities occurred. However, we do not agree 

that these need to be included in the FYR document. 

d) We disagree that the Regions should explain in the FYR document why interviews are 

omitted from the process. Interviews are not required by the guidance but are suggested 

as one of many community involvement activities to solicit feedback on the remedies 

being reviewed. 

e) During the last 18 months or so we have worked with the Regions to ensure all FYR 

documents were being reviewed for quality and completeness. We found that each 

Region has a document review process in place utilizing a variety of expertise from 

senior project managers, policy advisors, attorneys, risk assessors, community 

involvement coordinators, section chiefs, branch chiefs, and five-year review 

coordinators. Regions also routinely solicit feedback from State counterparts and other 

stakeholders. 

Recommendation 2-3 

Communicate to the regions the need for: (a) public notifications for the commencement 

and completion of five-year reviews; and (b) protectiveness conclusions that address each 

operable unit at a site. 

See Appendix D 

Note 3 

EPA Response 

We agree with the recommendation. We recently met with Regional community 

involvement staff and managers and shared with them the list of planned and due FYRs for FY 

2006 and FY 2007 to increase awareness and ensure that appropriate community involvement 

activities are conducted. In addition, in our training and Headquarters review, we are 

emphasizing that each operable unit should have a protectiveness conclusion. 

Recommendation 3-1 

To assess discrepancies or gaps in resources, evaluate annual five-year review 

workloads and available resources as part of the annual planning process with the regions. 

Communicate to the regions that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other contractor sources 

should be used for reviews where insufficient staffing will delay completion. 

See Appendix D 

Note 4 

32 
EPA Response 

We agree with the recommendation. For the last few years we have included this 

discussion in our annual work planning process with the Regions. Each Region is provided a list 

of FYRs for the upcoming fiscal year and expected due dates. We review their requests for 

contractor funding, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers support, cooperative agreements with states, 

or whether they will conduct FYRs “in-house.” We provide priority funding for FYRs to ensure 

they are completed on time. 

Recommendation 3-2 

Require regions to establish contingency plans that help ensure that five-year reviews 

meet due dates when there are changes in remedial project managers. The plans should ensure 

all site data/information is timely transferred to newly assigned remedial project managers. 

See Appendix D 

Note 5 

EPA Response 

We do not agree with the recommendation. We do not believe this activity is significant 

enough to require the development of a contingency plan. By providing an annual list of FYRs 

due to the Regions, managers can plan for any foreseen transition of remedial project managers. 

Recommendation 3-3 

Work with region officials to correctly identify five-year review due dates and enter these 

dates into the new CERCLIS 3 Module. 

See Appendix D 

Note 6 

EPA Response 

We agree with the recommendation. We have aggressively undertaken a data quality 

effort to ensure CERCLIS 3 reflects correct due dates for all planned FYRs. During the work 

planning sessions for FY 2007, Regions were also given a list of FYRs due over the next three 

years to verify due dates. For NPL Federal Facility reviews, we have sent letters to all Federal 

Agencies indicating when FYRs are due and have asked our Federal Facility Managers to review 

FYR information with their Federal Agency field personnel. 

33 
Recommendation 3-4 

After testing and validation of the CERCLIS 3 Module, monitor the status of five-year 

reviews and the recommended corrective actions established by completed reviews using the 

module and ensure they are completed by specified due dates. 

See Appendix D 

Note 7 

Recommendation 4-1 

Fully implement the CERCLIS 3 Module, after testing and validation, for the five-year 

review program. Require the regions to comply with the annual reporting requirement specified 

in the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance by populating the module with reporting data. 

See Appendix D 

Note 8 

Recommendation 4-2 

Use CERCLIS 3 Module data to measure the effectiveness and impacts of EPA’s fiveyear review program, such as measuring the timeliness of reviews, number of reviews with and 

without protectiveness issues, timeliness of implementing recommended corrective actions 

addressing protectiveness issues, and actual/potential results from implementing recommended 

corrective actions. 

See Appendix D 

Note 9 

EPA Response 

We agree with the recommendations 3-4, 4-1 and 4-2. The FYR CERCLIS 3 Module has 

been updated, and the second generation module has been in production since June 2006. 

Headquarters met with Regional Branch Chiefs to discuss issues related to FYRs, specifically the 

need to promptly input issues and recommendations identified in the reports into CERCLIS 3. 

Regional Branch Chiefs also agreed to review and verify progress for recommendations that 

affect protectiveness at least twice a year. 

The Regions are required to enter completion dates, issues and recommendations, and 

protectiveness statements into CERCLIS 3 in lieu of the annual reporting requirements specified 

in the guidance. 

Significant progress has been made entering data into the FYR CERCLIS 3 Module for 

FYRs completed since FY 2003. This allows us to generate reports that track issues and 

recommendations and the progress toward implementing them. Some of these reports have been 

made available to the Regions so they can closely monitor the status of recommendations, 

particularly those that impact protectiveness. 

34 
Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

2-1 

2-2 

2-3 

3-1 

3-2 

3-3 

10 

10 

11 

15 

15 

15 

Expand the Agency’s scope of the quality 

assurance reviews conducted under the initiative 

Improve the Quality and Consistency of Five-Year 

Review Reports. At a minimum, conduct quality 

assurance reviews for a representative sample of 

reports from each region 

Revise the Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance to more clearly define short- and longterm protectiveness determinations. Also revise 

the guidance to include specific requirements for 

conducting and documenting quality assurance 

reviews of five-year review reports, and maintain 

documentation to support the information in the 

reports

Communicate to the regions the need for: (a) public 

notifications for the commencement and 

completion of five-year reviews; and 

(b) protectiveness conclusions that address each 

operable unit at a site 

To assess discrepancies or gaps in resources, 

evaluate annual five-year review workloads and 

available resources as part of the annual planning 

process with the regions. Communicate to the 

Regions that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 

other contractor sources should be used for 

reviews where insufficient staffing will delay 

completion 

Require regions to establish contingency plans that 

help ensure that five-year reviews meet due dates 

when there are changes in remedial project 

managers. The plans should ensure all site 

data/information is timely transferred to newly 

assigned remedial project managers 

Work with region officials to correctly identify fiveyear review due dates and enter these dates into 

the new CERCLIS 3 Module 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Ongoing 

N/A 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

N/A 

Ongoing 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

3-4 

4-1 

15 

18 

After testing and validation of the CERCLIS 3 

Module, monitor the status of the five-year reviews 

and the recommended corrective actions 

established by completed reviews using the 

module and ensure they are completed by 

specified due dates.

Fully implement the CERCLIS 3 Module, after 

testing and validation, for the five-year review 

program. Require the regions to comply with the 

annual reporting requirement specified in the 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance by 

populating the module with reporting data

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

 Assistant Administrator 

OSWER 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

N/A 

N/A 

35 
POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To 

No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount 

4-2 18 Use CERCLIS 3 Module data to measure the 

effectiveness and impacts of EPA’s five-year 

review program, such as measuring the timeliness 

of reviews, number of reviews with and without 

protectiveness issues, timeliness of implementing 

recommended corrective actions addressing 

protectiveness issues, and actual/potential results 

from implementing recommended corrective 

actions 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;

 C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;

 U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

 Assistant Administrator Ongoing N/A 

OSWER 

36 
Appendix B – Reports Without Fully Supported or Complete Protectiveness Conclusions 

Plymouth Harbor - Region 1 

OIG Finding: The report identified inadequate access controls as an issue impacting current 

protectiveness. The report identified that the site’s perimeter fence must be reconstructed and 

maintained to control access to the property. The report further stated that there was inadequate 

data to determine the risk at the site. Because the access controls to the site are not functioning, 

and there is inadequate data to calculate risk for the site, there is uncertainty in determining the 

current protectiveness of the remedy. However, the protectiveness statement in the report stated 

that the remedy at the site is currently protective of human health and the environment. 

See Appendix D 

Note 10 

EPA Response: Although inadequate access controls is an issue that may impact protectiveness, 

the extent of the problem was not significant enough to affect the protectiveness determination at 

the time of the review. Most of the site was enclosed with proper access controls except for the 

northern portion which was only accessible by boat. Since then, the northern portion has been 

closed off. Also, the 5YR pointed out that the risk assessment was conservative using the 

highest cPAH data available which overstated the estimated risk. This conservative approach 

should be re-evaluated because it may impede future development. 

Tyson’s Dump - Region 3 

OIG Finding: The report’s technical assessment did not address all of the elements of the 

evaluation framework prescribed by the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. The 

technical assessment and document review sections of the report did not provide sampling data 

and other specific information to support the evaluation and protectiveness conclusions. 

See Appendix D 

Note 11 

EPA Response: The sampling data supporting the conclusions are referenced on page 16 which 

states, "The results of the 2003 Site-Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) demonstrate that 

groundwater pump and treat as a remedy for the deep aquifer is working..." Page 17 discusses 

this conclusion which includes reductions in contamination over a seven year period, decreasing 

trends of site-related contamination, and quarterly monitoring results from the adjacent river 

which show it is "free of site-related compounds". 

Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant) - Region 4 

OIG Finding: The report stated the site remedy was protective of human health and the 

environment. However, the technical assessment section disclosed that there was insufficient 

data to determine the impact of an off-site trichloroethylene contamination plume on the remedy. 

Further, interview information included in the report disclosed that a representative of the 

37 
primary responsible party for the site said increased trichloroethylene levels could require 

changes to the remedial design for the site. Therefore, information in the report noting a 

concern about the future protectiveness of the remedy appeared to contradict the protectiveness 

conclusion. 

See Appendix D 

Note 12 

EPA Response: The remedy design changes for addressing TCE referenced in the document 

relate to using larger activated carbon filters or potentially adding air strippers. Remedies often 

undergo design modifications, and we do not believe that the potential modification requires a 

non-protective conclusion. 

Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

Contamination Site - Region 4 

OIG Finding: The report concluded that the remedy for the site’s Operable Unit 2 was 

adequately protective of human health and the environment, and prescribed long-term 

monitoring at the site to assure future protectiveness. However, data and information presented 

in the report and supporting documents indicated the remedy was not completely functioning as 

intended. Information and data in the report and supporting documents identified that fish 

contamination levels for some species had not changed, indicating that the remedy for the site’s 

Operable Unit 1 was not completely addressing the source of contamination for Operable Unit 

2. Also, the five-year review and report did not address the remedy for Operable Unit 1 as part 

of the technical assessment, even though this unit was the source for the contamination in 

Operable Unit 2. 

See Appendix D 

Note 13 

EPA Response: The remedy at Operable Unit 2 focuses on human health consumption of 

contaminated fish and monitored natural recovery of sediments. As part of the five-year review, 

EPA conducted surveys and collected blood samples for PCBs from nearby residents. Results of 

the surveys showed that the fish advisories and public outreach programs were working. Also, 

results from the blood tests showed that participants had blood levels at or below the mean of the 

U.S. population. The report also clearly indicated that sediment PCB levels are decreasing 

through monitored natural recovery. A five-year review was conducted for Operable Unit 1 in 

FY 2005 and was not intended to be included in the FY 2004 review. 

4th Street Abandoned Refinery - Region 6 

OIG Finding: The report concluded that the remedy was expected to be protective upon 

completion, and in the interim all exposure pathways were being controlled. According to the 

report, monitoring data suggested that the remedy was functioning as required and achieving 

ground water cleanup goals. However, the report also disclosed that data from current well 

locations did not provide sufficient information to assess the influence of off-site contaminant 

38 
sources, horizontal migration of site-related contaminants, or natural attenuation of 

contaminants. The report indicated that a lack of data to assess those issues was grounds for 

considering the remedy to be failing. This information appeared to contradict the report’s 

statement that the remedy was functioning as required. 

See Appendix D 

Note 14 

EPA Response: The report identifies potential factors that may assist in the evaluation of the 

remedy as it operates. The Region and the State considered these observations as areas of 

concern and integrated them into an on-going monitoring program to ensure the remedy is 

working as intended. The statements do not imply that the remedy is not working. 

Appendix B – Reports With Incomplete Protectiveness Conclusions 

Beulah Landfill - Region 4 

OIG Finding: The report’s protectiveness conclusion did not address the actions needed to 

ensure the future protectiveness of the remedy. The report stated that the ground water at the 

site was not in compliance with Florida’s drinking and surface water standards, which was 

necessary to satisfy the closure requirements for the site specified in the Record of Decision. 

According to the report, the State was working on a remedial action plan to address this issue. 

However, the protectiveness conclusion did not discuss what actions are necessary to remediate 

any ground water that poses a threat to surface waters, and ensure future protectiveness for 

human health and the environment. 

See Appendix D 

Note 15 

EPA Response: The recommendation to develop a remedial action plan is sufficient to meet the 

five-year review requirement. The protectiveness conclusion did not include the specific actions 

necessary to address the issue because the appropriate response action plan was being developed 

by the State and the PRP at the time of the review. 

39 
Appendix D 

OIG Evaluation of Agency Response 

Note 1 - The Agency’s corrective actions appear to adequately address the 

recommendation. However, the Agency will need to be more specific on the 

scope of quality assurance reviews for Fiscal Years 2007 and later in its 

response to the final report. 

Note 2 - The Agency’s comments describe actions taken and planned that appear to 

generally address parts 2-2(a) and 2-2(b). However, the Agency will need to 

provide additional details in its response to the final report that explain how the 

refresher training, the increase in the number of draft five-year review reports 

reviewed by OSWER, and discussions with the regions will improve the report 

information supporting protectiveness conclusions and recommendations. 

Regarding the Agency’s comments for part 2-2(c), we are encouraged that the 

Agency agrees that the regions should maintain documentation supporting 

interviews. We agree that the documentation does not need to be included in 

five-year review reports. The Agency will need to include specific corrective 

actions taken and/or planned to address this part of the recommendation, 

including documentation supporting public notifications and quality assurance 

reviews, in its response to the final report. 

We agree with the Agency’s comments on part 2-2 (d). We removed the 

“Reviews Did Not Include Important Verification Activities” section in 

Chapter 2 as well as the applicable recommendation from the report. 

We are encouraged by the Agency’s comments for part 2-2 (e). This corrective 

action appears to meet the intent of our recommendation. However, the Agency 

will need to provide more specific details about its work with the regions to 

improve the regions’ quality assurance reviews in its response to the final 

report. As discussed in our report, the regions’ quality assurance reviews had 

not been effective in ensuring the quality and completeness of five-year reviews 

as of the end of Fiscal Year 2004. The Agency will also need to include 

milestones for completing the corrective actions for each part of 

Recommendation 2-2 in the response to the final report. 

40 
Note 3 - We agree with the actions taken and planned by the Agency. EPA will need to 

include specific milestones for completing these actions in its response to the 

final report. 

Note 4 - The Agency’s agreement with the recommendation is encouraging. We 

acknowledge that OSWER has discussed five-year workloads with the regions 

during annual planning meetings. However, large workloads for remedial 

project managers and a turnover of those managers for some sites were primary 

contributors to untimely five-year review reports. Therefore, OSWER’s current 

planning process has not been completely effective in assuring that sufficient 

resources are allocated to five-year reviews. In its response to the final report, 

the Agency will need to describe the actions taken or planned during the annual 

planning process to better ensure the regions have sufficient resources to timely 

complete five-year reviews. OSWER will also need to include specific 

milestones for completing these actions. 

Note 5 - We agree that Agency managers can plan for any foreseen transition of remedial 

project managers, and have removed the recommendation from the report. 

Recommendation 3-1 addresses the Agency’s annual five-year review planning 

process. Therefore, we have modified Recommendation 3-1 by recommending 

the use of contractor resources for reviews when changes in remedial project 

managers will delay completion. 

Note 6 - We are encouraged by actions taken and underway by the Agency. To 

completely address the recommendation, EPA will need to describe the data 

quality assurance efforts taken to correct due dates in the CERCLIS 3 Module 

prior to Fiscal Year 2007 in its response to the final report. The Agency will 

also need to include in its response specific milestones for completing actions 

taken and underway. 

Note 7- We are encouraged that the Agency agrees with the recommendation and the 

regions have agreed to review and verify progress for recommendations 

addressing protectiveness issues twice a year. However, the Agency’s 

comments do not describe actions taken and/or planned by OSWER to monitor 

timely completion of five-year reviews and implementation of 

recommendations established by five-year reviews. The Agency will need to 

provide additional details on action taken and/or planned to address the 

recommendation as well as a milestone for completing each action in its 

response to the final report. 

Note 8- Although the Agency agrees with the recommendation, its comments do not 

disclose whether the regions are required to populate the CERCLIS 3 Module 

with all the reporting data specified in the Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance. For example, the Agency does not identify whether report data 

specified by the guidance, such as implementation schedules for recommended 

corrective actions, are required to be populated in CERCLIS 3. The Agency 

41 
will need to provide additional details on actions taken and/or planned to 

address the recommendation as well as a milestone for completing each action 

in its response to the final report. 

Note 9- The Agency’s agreement with the recommendation is promising. We are also 

encouraged that the Agency has made significant progress in entering data into 

the CERCLIS 3 Module, which allows EPA to generate reports that track issues, 

recommendations, and progress. However, the Agency’s comments do not 

indicate whether specific data in CERCLIS 3 will be used to measure the 

effectiveness and impacts of the five-year review program. Therefore, EPA will 

need to provide more specific details on corrective actions taken and/or planned 

as well as milestones for completing the actions in its response to the final 

report. 

Note 10- The report specifically identifies the inadequate access controls as an issue that 

impacts the current and future protectiveness of the site, yet the report provides 

a protectiveness statement that cites the site is currently protective. We agree 

with the Agency’s comments on the risk assessment after further review of the 

five-year review report, and we made appropriate revisions to the paragraph. 

Note 11 - The data review section on pages 16 and 17 of the five-year review report 

provide only general conclusions taken directly from page 12 of the 2003 

Annual Monitoring Report for the Tyson Superfund Site. The report does not 

provide any sampling results or any further details to support the evaluation and 

protectiveness conclusions. Further, the document review section of the fiveyear review report does not cite any monitoring or sampling reports that cover 

the five-year review period. 

Note 12 - The five-year review report states that increasing trichloroethylene 

contamination levels have shortened the life of carbon absorption canisters in 

the treatment facility; however, the long-term effects of this change on the 

remedy is unknown. Groundwater treatment at the site is achieved by removal 

of the contaminants of concern through these carbon absorption canisters. 

Therefore, the carbon absorption canisters are critical components of the 

groundwater remedy. Given the lack of certainty regarding the impact of 

trichloroethylene contamination on the remedy’s effectiveness, it is unclear 

from the details presented in the five-year review report how the protectiveness 

conclusion was reached. We made revisions to the paragraph for clarity. 

Note 13 - We agree that the protectiveness conclusion for Operable Unit 2 was adequately 

supported based on the Agency’s comments and further review of the five-year 

review report. However, the five-year review report provides a site-wide 

protectiveness conclusion without addressing Operable Unit 1 in the technical 

assessment section. Therefore, we reclassified the report’s protectiveness 

conclusion from “not fully supported” to “incomplete.” We made appropriate 

revisions to Chapter 2 and Appendix B. 

42 
Note 14 - We agree that the five-year review report identifies early indicators of potential 

remedy failure in the technical assessment that assist in the evaluation of the 

remedy. The five-year review report identifies that site contaminants were 

present above action levels, and that data from current well locations may not 

provide sufficient information to assess the influence of off-site contaminant 

sources, horizontal migration of site-related contaminants, or natural attenuation 

of contaminants. This information appears to contradict a statement in the 

protectiveness conclusion disclosing that the remedy was functioning as 

intended and was achieving ground water cleanup goals. We modified the 

paragraph for clarity. 

Note 15 - We agree with the Agency after further review of the five-year review report. 

We made appropriate revisions to Chapter 2 and removed the paragraph in 

question from Appendix B. 

43 
Appendix E 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) 

Agency Followup Coordinator 

Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

General Counsel 

Acting Inspector General 

44