OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

 Evaluation Report 

Limited Investigation Led to 

Missed Contamination at 

Ringwood Superfund Site 

Report No. 2007-P-00039 

September 25, 2007 
 

 

 

 

Report Contributors:	 Carolyn Copper 

Patrick Milligan 

 Angela Bennett 

 Jee Kim

 Steven Weber 

Abbreviations: 

Borough Borough of Ringwood 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERRD Emergency and Remedial Response Division 

Ford Ford Motor Company 

NCP National Contingency Plan 

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NPL National Priorities List 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

RPM Remedial Project Manager 

Site Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site 

Cover photo: Paint sludge deposit at the Site. (Photo taken by OIG, August 2006) 
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-P-00039
 

Office of Inspector General September 25, 2007
 

At a Glance
 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

Members of Congress 

requested that we examine 

several issues about the 

cleanup decisions, oversight, 

and actions at the Ringwood 

Mines/Landfill Superfund site 

(Site) located in Ringwood, 

New Jersey. This report 

addresses questions raised 

about cleaning up the Site and 

the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

oversight of that cleanup. 

Background 

In 1983, due to concerns about 

groundwater and surface water 

contamination, EPA listed the 

Site on the Superfund National 

Priorities List (NPL). In 1994, 

after addressing known 

concerns, EPA deleted it from 

the NPL. However, several 

more cleanup actions have 

occurred at the Site since, 

prompting EPA for the first 

time in Superfund’s history to 

restore a site to the NPL. 

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/ 

20070925-2007-P-00039.pdf 

Limited Investigation Led to Missed 

Contamination at Ringwood Superfund Site 

What We Found 

EPA’s oversight of the Ford Motor Company’s cleanup at the Site met many 

requirements. Based on the initial investigation, EPA selected a remedy that 

addressed groundwater and surface water concerns at the Site. EPA ensured 

implementation of the remedy and removal of identified paint sludge, deleted the 

Site from the NPL, and conducted the 5-year reviews. However, EPA did not 

comply with the community notification requirements when conducting the 5-year 

reviews. 

Residents continued to discover paint sludge at the Site after EPA deleted it from 

the NPL in 1994. These discoveries were because EPA did not ensure that Ford’s 

initial Site investigation was comprehensive. During the initial investigation, EPA 

could have ensured that Ford conducted a more comprehensive survey of the 500-

acre Site and made better use of aerial photographs. In addition, EPA itself could 

have conducted a more thorough search for records involving waste disposal 

activities at the Site by enforcing disclosure requirements on Ford. Had EPA 

taken or enforced these actions, it may have produced information that supported a 

more comprehensive site investigation or identified additional paint sludge. Under 

EPA orders, Ford is conducting an ongoing, comprehensive Site investigation. If 

done properly, it should address concerns about the initial Site investigation. 

EPA Region 2 managers were not regularly documenting ongoing Site visits and 

discussions with State managers. EPA’s Records Management Manual requires 

documentation of such activities in certain circumstances. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that EPA Region 2 ensure that: 1) Ford has submitted all relevant 

information regarding the company’s waste disposal activities at the Site; 2) the 

Ringwood community receives the required notification of the initiation and 

results of any future 5-year reviews at the Site; and 3) appropriate EPA staff 

receive written guidance defining their responsibilities for complying with EPA’s 

records management policies when conducting conversations with State officials 

and during site visits. In its response to the draft report, the Region agreed with 

recommendations 1 and 2, but did not agree with recommendation 3, which we 

revised to account for the Region’s comments. 
 

 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEMORANDUM 

September 25, 2007 

SUBJECT: Limited Investigation Led to Missed Contamination 

at Ringwood Superfund Site 

Report No. 2007-P-00039 

tor General 

FROM: Wade T. Najjum

Assistant Inspec

Office of Program Evaluation 

TO: Alan J. Steinberg 

Regional Administrator 

Region 2 

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. The OIG 

responded to the Agency’s draft report comments by making changes to the report and providing 

responses to EPA, as appropriate. 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 $544,626. 

Action Required 

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

report within 90 calendar days. Your response should include a corrective action plan for agreed 

upon actions, including milestone dates. Please email an electronic version of your response that 

complies with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to Patrick Milligan at 

milligan.patrick@epa.gov. 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 regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper, 

Director for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste Issues, at (202) 566-0829, or 

copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Patrick Milligan, Project Manager, at (215) 814-2326, or 

milligan.patrick@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limited Investigation Led to Missed Contamination 

at Ringwood Superfund Site 

Table of Contents 

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

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

Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 2 

Limited Approach Impedes Discovering All Paint Sludge............................................... 3 

Site Survey Limited to Visible Paint Sludge in Designated Areas... ....................... 4 

EPA Did Not Ensure Investigation Made Full Use of Aerial Photographs............... 4 

EPA Did Not Require Ford to Conduct Further Search of Records ........................ 5 

EPA Provided Oversight of Cleanup, But Did Not Notify Community of 

5-Year Reviews..................................................................................................................... 6 

EPA Ensured Removing Identified Paint Sludge and Implementing 

Appropriate Remedy ............................................................................................ 6 

EPA Followed the Process for Site Deletions, But Did Not Notify 

 Community of 5-Year Reviews............................................................................. 7 

EPA Needs to Improve Current Recordkeeping Practices .............................................. 8 

Recommendations............................................................................................................... 9 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ............................................................................ 10 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits....................................... 11 

Appendices 

A Timeline of Events at Ringwood.......................................................................... 12 

B Details on Scope and Methodology..................................................................... 13 

C Agency Comments on Draft Report ................................................................... 14 

D Distribution ............................................................................................................ 17 
 

 

Purpose 

This report addresses questions raised about the cleanup of the Ringwood Mines/Landfill 

Superfund site (Site) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) oversight 

of that cleanup. We performed this evaluation in response to a request from members of 

Congress. We addressed the following questions: 

•	 What changes have occurred or what conditions did EPA identify that 

necessitate the restoration of the Site on the NPL? Why were these factors not 

previously identified or addressed as part of the initial remedial action? 

•	 Did EPA select a remedy based on complete, thorough, and accurate data 

collection and analysis that would ensure protection of human health and the 

environment? 

•	 Did EPA provide adequate and proper oversight of the remedial investigation, 

feasibility study, remedy selection process, and Site cleanup in accordance 

with applicable laws, regulations, policies, guidance, and past Agency 

practices? 

Background 

The 500-acre Site operated as iron mines, beginning in the early 1700s. Multiple parties 

disposed wastes at the Site since the 1960s. From 1967 until 1974, Ringwood Realty, a 

subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company (Ford), owned the Site. During this period, Ford 

disposed automobile manufacturing wastes, including car parts and paint sludge, on the 

ground, and in abandoned pits and mineshafts. In 1970, Ringwood Realty donated 290 

acres in the southern portion of the Site to the Ringwood Solid Waste Management 

Authority (Agency of the Borough of Ringwood (Borough)), which began operating a 

permitted municipal landfill in 1972. Ford utilized the landfill for disposal of its wastes 

until 1974. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) ordered 

the landfill closed in 1976 after confirming contamination leaching from the landfill into 

nearby surface water. 

At the time of the initial Site investigation in 1984, the Site consisted of rugged forested 

areas and open areas overgrown with vegetation. There were also abandoned pits and 

mineshafts, an inactive landfill, open waste dumps, and about 50 private homes. Surface 

water and groundwater beneath the Site discharged into the Wanaque Reservoir, a 

drinking water source for approximately 65,000 people, located one-half mile from the 

waste disposal areas. 

EPA placed the Site on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983. Test results 

in 1982 had indicated the detection of heavy metals in groundwater and surface water, 

and there were concerns with the Site's close proximity to the Wanaque Reservoir. EPA 

identified two liable parties responsible for contaminating the Site -- Ford and the 

Borough. 

1 
 

 

Between 1984 and 1988, under EPA and NJDEP oversight, Ford conducted the initial 

Site investigation and removed paint sludge identified during the investigation. In 1989, 

Ford implemented a long-term monitoring program as part of the “no action remedy” 

selected to address groundwater and surface water concerns at the Site. Through 1993, 

groundwater monitoring results showed that the detection of contaminants was sporadic 

and inconsistent. Results also showed that contamination was not migrating from the 

Site. Surface water results detected no contaminants above acceptable levels. On this 

basis, in agreement with the NJDEP, EPA deleted the Site from the NPL in 1994. 

As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA performed its first 5-year review of the Ringwood Site in 

1998. The purpose of a 5-year review is to determine whether remedies are protecting, or 

will protect, human health and the environment. The first 5-year review concluded the 

Site was protective of human health and the environment. In 2003, EPA conducted a 

supplemental 5-year review and again declared the Site protective of human health and 

the environment, and recommended discontinuing the 5-year review process. 

Between 1990 and 2004, Ford continued to remove new discoveries of paint sludge. 

Consequently, EPA issued an Administrative Order of Consent to Ford and a Unilateral 

Administrative Order to the Borough during the fall of 2005 for a supplemental Site 

investigation. Per the two orders, Ford and the Borough are required to coordinate their 

cleanup efforts at Ringwood. EPA required the supplemental investigation to determine 

the nature and extent of contamination at the Site. Identified by EPA as the performing 

party, Ford agreed to perform the investigation, including resurveying the Site, removing 

remaining surface paint sludge, removing additional paint sludge identified during the 

Site survey, and conducting groundwater and surface water monitoring. Since December 

2004, Ford has removed over 24,000 tons of paint sludge and soil as part of the ongoing 

cleanup effort. These more recent cleanup actions have prompted EPA for the first time 

in Superfund’s history to restore a site to the NPL. 

See Appendix A for a detailed timeline of events at Ringwood. 

The OIG’s Office of Congressional and Public Liaison issued a separate report1

 on 

April 2, 2007, that addressed environmental justice concerns and community relations 

issues at the Site. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our evaluation from June 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. We limited our review to compliance 

with those management controls related to the issues identified in the congressional 

request. 

1

 OIG Report No. 2007-P-00016 titled Environmental Justice Concerns and Communication Problems 

Complicated Cleaning Up Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site. 

2 
 

At the time of the Site cleanup, EPA was in the early stages of implementing the 

Superfund program. Compared to the Superfund program today, a relatively small 

amount of policy and guidance was available to EPA as it conducted oversight of the 

Ringwood cleanup in the mid 1980s. We evaluated EPA’s performance against the 

criteria applicable at the time, where criteria existed. We primarily relied on the 

applicable requirements stipulated in the legal cleanup agreements (i.e., Administrative 

Orders of Consent and Unilateral Administrative Orders). 

Our review focused on whether EPA selected a remedy based on complete, thorough, and 

accurate data collection and analysis, and whether that remedy would ensure protection 

of human health and the environment. We also evaluated whether EPA provided proper 

oversight of the remedial investigation, feasibility study, remedy selection process, and 

Site cleanup in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, guidance, and past 

Agency practices. We did not evaluate activities performed under the 2005 

Administrative Orders issued to Ford and the Borough. However, we did evaluate these 

activities to determine differences in current investigative practices versus past actions. 

To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed past and present EPA Region 2 and 

NJDEP managers involved with the Site. We reviewed EPA’s Ringwood Superfund Site 

files and Administrative Record files, which included public files, enforcement files, 

legal files, and electronic files. We reviewed Site files that NJDEP maintained. We 

obtained specific records from Ford that could not be located in EPA’s files. We also 

toured the Site to gain an understanding of the location, conditions, characteristics, and 

ongoing activities. Appendix B provides further details on our scope and methodology. 

Limited Approach Impedes Discovering All Paint Sludge 

Between 1990 and 2004, Ford performed four unplanned removals of paint sludge and 

other contaminated wastes at the Site. Ford conducted three of the removals after EPA 

deleted the Site from the NPL in 1994. This situation occurred because some aspects of 

the initial Site investigation were limited, which impeded early discovery of all possible 

paint sludge deposits at the Site. EPA could have required Ford to conduct a more 

comprehensive Site survey and ensured using available aerial photographs to identify 

potential paint sludge locations outside Figure 1: Exposed Paint Sludge the originally scoped areas. EPA 

could have also conducted a more 

thorough search for records involving 

waste disposal activities at the Site by 

enforcing the disclosure requirements 

on Ford. Had EPA taken these actions, 

it may have produced information 

supporting a more comprehensive Site 

investigation or identified additional 

paint sludge deposits. Under EPA 

orders, Ford is conducting an ongoing, 

comprehensive Site investigation. 

3 

Source: EPA OIG Photo Taken August 2006 
Site Survey Limited to Visible Paint Sludge in Designated Areas 

In scoping the investigation work at the 500-acre Site in 1983, Ford identified three areas 

where it directed waste haulers to dump waste. Ford also identified a potential fourth 

area during its preliminary Site survey. Unlike the three known disposal areas, there 

were no records of dumping activities in this fourth area. However, Ford determined that 

because there were no signs of natural vegetation, it would investigate the area. EPA and 

Ford limited its search for waste, including visible paint sludge, to these four areas. This 

was due in part because of the size of the Site, the terrain, and its rugged and dense 

forested and vegetative areas. The initial Site investigation included a Site survey that 

was also limited to the four areas (1) to identify solid wastes (including paint sludge) 

observed on the surface (as well as shallow buried waste), and (2) to map other features 

(e.g., seeps, streams, ditches, etc.). An EPA manager stated that EPA did not anticipate 

dumping of paint sludge outside these areas, nor hidden paint sludge, because Ford 

owned the property and had established designated disposal areas. 

EPA’s early focus was primarily on whether wastes from the disposal areas were 

threatening human health through contaminated groundwater, surface water, and 

sediments. Early surveys alerted EPA to an “extremely large” potential for groundwater 

contamination at the Site. Early test results had detected the presence of heavy metals in 

both groundwater and surface water, which discharged into the Wanaque Reservoir. 

Under the ongoing cleanup, EPA has ensured that Ford conducted a more comprehensive 

survey when compared to the initial Site survey. For example, Ford has conducted a 

walking survey of the Site to observe surface conditions and to identify paint sludge and 

drum remnants buried just beneath the visible surface. Had EPA and Ford used this 

technique during the initial Site investigation, it may have provided more information on 

the nature and extent of contamination at the Site, which could have helped EPA 

determine the proper scope of the investigation. 

EPA Did Not Ensure Investigation Made Full Use of Aerial Photographs 

EPA could have done more to discover paint sludge outside of the four identified areas of 

concern. The Agency could have ensured better use of the aerial photography analysis. 

Use of this tool could have identified at least one area, along Hope Mountain Road, that 

is part of ongoing removal efforts. In the ongoing investigation, Ford is extensively using 

aerial photography to help identify paint sludge locations. 

In 1983, EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center issued a detailed 

analysis of aerial photographs to support the initial Site investigation. This analysis 

compared aerial photos of the Site taken between 1940 and 1983 to identify differences in 

the ground layout. The analysis helps EPA identify changes in terrain resulting from 

newly built roads, trails, and buildings. It also helps EPA find waste sites by identifying 

newly filled-in areas, and locations with ground scarring and debris. 

4 
The aerial photography analysis could have indicated buried paint sludge outside the four 

areas of concern. Specifically, the 1974 aerial photograph shows recently formed, large 

concentrations of debris piles scattered along Hope Mountain Road. This road was 

outside the original four areas identified in the initial Site investigation. The debris piles 

are located in or near areas currently targeted for paint sludge removal. EPA Site 

managers said they used the aerial photography analysis during the initial Site 

investigation to identify potential disposal areas but could “only speculate as to the 

investigation and elimination of other discrete areas identified in the photos.” EPA 

records showed that EPA and Ford did “walk up” Hope Mountain Road during the initial 

investigation, but no removals from Hope Mountain Road occurred under the initial 

removal activities. 

EPA Did Not Require Ford to Conduct Further Search of Records 

In May 1983, EPA sent Ford a CERCLA Section 104 (e) information request regarding 

Ford’s waste disposal activities at the Site. Ford’s response did identify the three areas 

where they directed waste haulers to dump waste. 

However, several aspects of the response should Figure 2: Ongoing Cleanup Effort have prompted EPA to enforce, or independently 

conduct, a more thorough search for records 

involving Ford’s waste disposal activities at the 

Site. For example, Ford did not certify that the 

information it submitted was complete. Rather, 

Ford stated, “In the spirit of cooperation and to 

assist in expediting EPA’s investigation, Ford 

Motor Company has reviewed [our] files which 

have been located and are reasonably likely to 

contain information responsive to EPA’s request.” 

Specifically, Ford did not submit required 

information on the amount of each hazardous 

substance disposed of at Ringwood. EPA did not 

conduct any followup enforcement or general 

inquiries to Ford to find out where this 

information was or why Ford did not submit it. 

Ford disclosed to EPA that it had poor performance issues with its waste hauler. Yet 

EPA did not follow up with Ford to determine whether this poor performance could have 

implications for the scope of the Site investigation. For example, EPA did not seek to 

determine whether the waste hauler’s poor performance involved haphazard or 

unauthorized dumping. Had EPA taken action to enforce Ford’s information disclosure 

requirements, or to conduct its own independent search for records, it may have produced 

information that supported a more comprehensive Site investigation. Then, in 2004, Ford 

disclosed additional information to EPA regarding its waste disposal activities due to 

“renewed interest” at the Site. Ford’s 2004 disclosure contained information not 

provided to EPA in 1983. 

Source: EPA OIG Photo Taken August 2006 

5 
EPA Provided Oversight of Cleanup, But Did Not Notify 

Community of 5-Year Reviews 

Based on the results of the initial investigation and the removal of identified paint sludge, 

EPA selected a “no further action remedy” with long-term monitoring that addressed 

groundwater and surface water concerns at the Site. The Agency based the remedy 

selection on complete, thorough, and accurate data collection and analysis of soil, 

groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples taken during the initial Site 

investigation. 

EPA prepared the record of decision and explained its rationale for selecting the final 

remedy. EPA’s oversight ensured removing identified paint sludge and implementing the 

remedy. EPA followed the process for site deletion; however, EPA’s 5-year review 

failed to address community notification requirements. 

EPA provided continued oversight throughout the initial Site investigation, feasibility 

study, and Site cleanup. EPA oversight included reviewing and approving of work 

products produced by Ford (through its environmental contractors). The requirements for 

work products and EPA oversight responsibilities were contained in Administrative 

Orders. EPA primarily used contractors to oversee Site activities. EPA made Site visits 

to provide direct oversight of Ford. While EPA had primary oversight responsibility for 

the cleanup, NJDEP took a secondary role. 

From 1984 to 1988, Ford conducted the initial Site investigation to determine the nature 

and extent of contamination at the Site. Based on the results of the initial Site 

investigation, Ford concluded an overall lack of ground water contamination, but 

suggested that paint sludge might be leaching near shallow groundwater. In 1987, EPA 

required Ford to assess the risk associated with contamination at the Site. The 

assessment generally concluded that the Site posed a potential health concern. There was 

a risk of possible exposure to hazardous substances, including arsenic and lead. As 

required under Superfund, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

independently conducted a human health assessment for the Site. The assessment 

included the results of the initial Site investigation and, similar to Ford, concluded that 

the Site posed a potential health concern. 

EPA Ensured Removing Identified Paint Sludge and Implementing 

Appropriate Remedy 

In 1987, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Ford to initiate a program for 

removing paint sludge and associated contaminated soils. As a result, Ford removed 

11,340 tons of paint sludge and contaminated soil from the Site identified during the 

initial investigation. With these removal efforts completed in 1988, EPA believed it had 

removed the source of groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination at the 

Site. 

6 
In 1988, EPA issued a record of decision documenting the “no further action remedy.” 

The remedy included a long-term monitoring program to ensure protection of human 

health and the environment. In 1989, EPA ensured that Ford initiated the long-term 

monitoring program according to the requirements of the record of decision and work 

plan approved under the Administrative Order. The work plan called for a 5-year 

monitoring program. It focused on the areas of concern identified during the initial Site 

investigation. The work plan also called for an evaluation of the monitoring program 

after the first year. 

Because of acceptable test results during the first year, EPA and Ford agreed to reduce 

the number of wells sampled. In addition, EPA reduced the type of testing performed for 

potable and groundwater monitoring. Ford, with EPA approval, discontinued surface 

water monitoring because none of the pollutants exceeded their acceptable levels. 

From 1990 to 1995, except for sporadic detection of lead and arsenic above acceptable 

levels, groundwater quality essentially remained unchanged since the initial Site 

investigation. Where wells showed a detection of lead and arsenic above acceptable 

levels, EPA required additional rounds of sampling. Sample results, issued in 2001, 

indicated that detection levels of lead and arsenic in the sampling wells were below 

acceptable levels, and thus protective of human health and the environment. On this 

basis, EPA made the decision to discontinue groundwater monitoring at the Site. 

EPA Followed the Process for Site Deletions, But Did Not Notify 

Community of 5-Year Reviews 

EPA followed the process for site deletions and conducted the required 5-year reviews. 

Under CERCLA, when no further response action is appropriate, EPA can delete a site 

from the NPL once it meets criteria. CERCLA also requires that EPA conduct 5-year 

reviews at sites in order to determine whether remedies are protecting, or will protect, 

human health and the environment. 

On November 2, 1994, EPA deleted the Site from the NPL. EPA and NJDEP determined 

that no further cleanup by responsible parties was appropriate and that activities 

conducted at the Site were protective of human health and the environment. EPA’s 

actions related to the deletion process were consistent with requirements. The Agency 

used information from the record of decision, the initial Site investigation, and the longterm monitoring and paint sludge removal programs as the basis for the deletion. In 

1993, EPA published a Notice of Intent of Deletion in the Federal Register. This notice 

stated EPA had also published a notice in the local newspapers, but EPA’s records did 

not contain the notice. EPA received no public comment regarding the deletion during 

the 30-day comment period. 

In 1998, EPA conducted its first 5-year review at the Site. The review addressed most of 

the required components of a 5-year review. However, EPA did not notify the 

7 
 

 

 

 

community of the planned 5-year review or of its results.2 Per 5-year review guidance 

issued in 1991: “EPA will inform the public when it determines that either a Statutory or 

Policy five-year review is appropriate, describe the planned scope of such reviews, 

identify the location of the report on the review (see section V below), and describe 

actions taken based on any review.” Based on the 1998 5-year review, EPA concluded 

that the Site was protective of human health and the environment. The Agency noted that 

continued removal of known paint sludge at the Site had eliminated the source of 

contamination. However, because paint sludge removal and monitoring activities were 

ongoing at the time of the review, EPA recommended another 5-year review on or before 

September 30, 2003. 

In 2003, EPA issued an addendum to the 1998 5-year review. EPA concluded that the 

results of the long-term monitoring, completed in 2001, showed a decrease in the levels 

of Site-related contaminants to acceptable levels. With these acceptable levels, the Site 

no longer warranted groundwater monitoring. EPA had not identified additional paint 

sludge deposits since completion of the removal action in 1998. On this basis, EPA 

declared the Site protective of human health and the environment, and recommended 

discontinuing the 5-year review process. 

However, as with the 1998 5-year review, we found no evidence that EPA met the 

community notification requirements, as defined in the June 2001 Comprehensive FiveYear Review Guidance. EPA must notify the community when the 5-year review will 

begin, when it is completed, and the results of the review. Because EPA removed 

additional paint sludge in 2004 and restored the Site to the NPL in September 2006, it 

plans to conduct additional 5-year reviews at the Site, starting in 2011. EPA will need to 

ensure it informs the community of the initiation and results of that review. 

EPA Needs to Improve Current Recordkeeping Practices 

In our discussion with the current Remedial Project Manager (RPM) regarding EPA’s 

relationship with NJDEP, he stated that EPA and NJDEP provide comments to each other 

regarding work plans and other cleanup related documents and have meetings and 

teleconferences to discuss issues. He explained that the results of these meetings or 

negotiations are not always in writing and that each RPM may handle it differently 

because no standard protocol exists in this area. He noted that he does not document site 

visits in many cases. As applicable guidance, Region 2 cited the 1999 CERCLA 

Enforcement Project Management Handbook. The Handbook assists Superfund RPMs in 

managing response actions led by potentially responsible parties. In a June 13, 2007, 

response to an OIG information request, Region 2 managers wrote the following: 

EPA believes this guidance does suggest that PRPs [potentially 

responsible parties] and EPA’s oversight assistant (usually an EPA 

contractor or Army Corps of Engineer representative) keep accurate 

2

 For more information on community communications at the Site, see Chapter 3 of OIG Report No. 2007-

P-00016 titled Environmental Justice Concerns and Communication Problems Complicated Cleaning Up 

Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site. 

8 
records of site activities through the use of field activity reports, field 

logbooks and photographic logs. However, this guidance does not 

recommend that the RPM keep written records of all site visits and 

discussions with NJDEP. 

We agree that this guidance does not recommend that RPMs maintain records of all site 

visits and all conversations with State personnel. However, documentation of the results 

of meetings and teleconferences, as well as decisions made during site visits, should 

comply with the requirements and responsibilities of EPA’s records management policies 

and program. EPA documents this in its Records Management Manual. 

Under the authority of the Federal Records Act, EPA’s Agency-wide Records 

Management Manual requires written documentation of meetings and site visits in certain 

circumstances. The Records Management Manual states that an information resource 

may be a record if it 

(1) documents significant Agency decisions and commitments; 

(2) adds to a proper understanding of the formulation or execution of Agency 

 actions, operations, and responsibilities; 

(3) conveys information of value on important Agency activities; 

(4) facilitates action by Agency staff; 

(5) provides key substantive comments on a draft; and 

(6) makes possible a proper scrutiny by Congress or the Agency. 

Based on our interviews of EPA Site managers, we believe that site visits and discussions 

with State officials would often meet several of the six definitions described above. In 

specifically addressing discussions with State agencies, the manual states “any oral 

communication where an Agency decision or commitment is made, and that is not 

otherwise documented, needs to be captured and placed in the recordkeeping system.” 

We believe EPA’s Records Management Manual applies to all EPA programs and 

offices, and supports improved Region 2 documentation of its site-related discussions and 

site visits. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Region 2 Administrator direct the Region’s Emergency and 

Remedial Response Division (ERRD) to: 

1. Conduct a followup Section 104(e) request to Ford Motor Company requesting 

any relevant information regarding its waste disposal activities at Ringwood that 

Ford may still have and has not yet submitted. We also request that Ford certify 

that the information submitted is complete. 

2. Notify the Ringwood community of the initiation and results of any future 5-year 

reviews at the Ringwood site, consistent with EPA guidance. 

9 
 

 

3. Provide ERRD staff with written guidance defining their responsibilities for 

complying with EPA’s records management policies when conducting 

conversations with State officials and during site visits. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The OIG made changes to the report based on Region 2’s comments where 

appropriate. Appendix C provides the full text of the Region’s comments. 

Region 2 agreed with recommendation 1 and stated that within 90 days, they will issue 

a follow-up Section 104(e) request to the Ford Motor Company requesting that Ford 

perform a review of all relevant and appropriate company files and provide EPA with 

any new information that Ford uncovers. Furthermore, EPA will demand that Ford 

certify that all information provided to EPA, including past submittals, is true, accurate, 

and complete. In response to our final report, Region 2 will need to comment on the 

status of these proposed actions. Recommendation 1 is open. 

Region 2 agreed with recommendation 2 and stated “consistent with EPA’s 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, dated June 2001, Region 2 will notify the 

community of any future 5-year reviews to be conducted at the Ringwood 

Mines/Landfill site.” After re-listing the Site in September 2006, the earliest possible 

date for Region 2 to conduct a 5-year review is 2011. We will close recommendation 2 

in the Inspector General Operations and Reporting System. However, the OIG may 

follow up to ensure this recommendation has been implemented. 

Region 2 did not agree with recommendation 3 and believes that ERRD currently 

complies with EPA’s Records Management policies. Region 2 said that it documents 

significant Agency decisions and commitments in writing and has done so at the 

Ringwood site. We revised the report based on the Agency comments regarding EPA’s 

Records Management Manual. Although the Region believes it is currently in 

compliance, the OIG found that past practices at the Ringwood site did not appear to be 

in compliance. Therefore, we have revised recommendation 3 to provide ERRD staff 

with written guidance defining their responsibilities for complying with EPA’s records 

management policies when conducting conversations with State officials and during 

site visits. Recommendation 3 is open and unresolved. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To 

No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount 

1 9 Direct the Region’s Emergency and Remedial O Region 2 Administrator January 

Response Division to conduct a follow-up Section 2008 

104 (e) request to Ford Motor Company requesting 

any relevant information regarding its waste 

disposal activities at Ringwood that Ford may still 

have and has not yet submitted. We also request 

that Ford certify that the information submitted is 

complete. 

2 9 Direct the Region’s Emergency and Remedial C Region 2 Administrator 12/31/2011 

Response Division to notify the Ringwood 

community of the initiation and results of any future 

5-year reviews at the Ringwood site, consistent 

with EPA guidance. 

3 10 Provide Emergency and Remedial Response U Region 2 Administrator 

Division staff with written guidance defining their 

responsibilities for complying with EPA’s records 

management policies when conducting 

conversations with State officials and during site
 

visits 

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 

11 
Appendix A 

Timeline of Events at Ringwood 

1967 Ford contracted with a waste hauler to dispose of waste materials from 

Ford’s Mahwah, New Jersey, plant. 

1974 Ford stopped sending waste of any type to the Site. 

1983 EPA placed the Site on the NPL. 

1984 EPA identified Ford as a potential liable party for contamination at the 

Site. 

1984 -1988 Ford conducted the initial Site investigation to determine the nature and 

extent of Site contamination. 

1987-1988 Ford removed 11,340 tons of paint sludge and associated soils 

identified during the initial Site investigation. 

1988 EPA issued a record of decision to implement a long-term monitoring 

program for the Site. 

1990-1991 

Ford removed an additional 600 cubic yards (and also 54 drums) 

discovered during construction-related activities. EPA officially 

identified the Borough of Ringwood as a potential liable party for 

contamination at the Site. 

1993 EPA published a Notice of Intent of Deletion from the NPL in the 

Federal Register. 

1994 EPA deleted the Site from the NPL. 

1995 Ford removed an additional 5 cubic yards of paint sludge from 

residential property. 

1998 Ford removed an additional 100 cubic yards of paint sludge discovered 

by the community. 

1998 EPA conducted its first 5-year review for the Site. 

2001 Ford released its final long-term monitoring report and recommended 

discontinuing its monitoring program. 

2003 

EPA issued an addendum to the 1998 5-Year Review and 

recommended discontinuing the monitoring program and 5-year review 

process. 

2004 Ford initiated removal actions in December and has removed over 

24,000 tons. 

2005 

EPA issued orders to Ford and the Borough of Ringwood for a 

supplemental Site investigation to determine the nature and extent of 

remaining contamination. 

2006 EPA restored the Site to the NPL. 

12 
Appendix B 

Details on Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our evaluation from June 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. We limited our review to compliance with those 

management controls related to the issues identified in the congressional request. Our scope 

covered the cleanup of the Site and EPA’s oversight role. We reviewed activities from Site 

discovery (1979) through 2003. Our review did not include assessing activities at the Site since 

2004 or those activities pertaining to the Administrative Orders EPA issued to Ford and the 

Borough in 2005. To understand EPA’s oversight role and specific Site activities, we 

interviewed past and present EPA Site managers in Region 2. We also reviewed the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), and other program documents and records applicable to EPA’s Superfund 

process. 

To address the restoration of the Site on the NPL, we reviewed documents related to paint sludge 

removal activities. These activities happened before and after EPA deleted the Site from the 

NPL. We also reviewed documents pertaining to the current supplemental investigative 

activities conducted by Ford. We compared current and past activities at the Site to determine 

differences in EPA’s approach. We compared current and past investigative practices used in 

identifying paint sludge. 

To address the appropriateness of the remedy selected, we reviewed key documents leading to 

selection of the remedy. The documents included the remedial investigation, feasibility study, 

risk assessment, paint sludge removal program, and the record of decision. We evaluated the 

completeness, thoroughness, and accuracy of these documents. We based our evaluation on 

applicable criteria. The criteria included the NCP, CERCLA, and various Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directives. In addition, we evaluated EPA's and NJDEP's 

review and approval of these documents. 

To evaluate whether EPA provided proper oversight of the initial Site investigation, feasibility 

study, the paint sludge removal program, and Site cleanup in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, guidance, and past Agency practices, we reviewed documents related to 

EPA's activities and processes. Likewise, we assessed EPA actions related to the remedy 

selection process, 5-year reviews, Site closeout, and deletion from the NPL. We evaluated these 

processes based on applicable criteria at the time of the cleanup. We also reviewed various 

OSWER Directives pertaining to Site deletion and 5-year reviews. 

To determine consistency with past Agency practices, we conducted a search for an NPL site 

similar to the Ringwood site. We searched EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database. We also asked EPA 

Region 2 Site managers whether they were aware of any NPL sites similar to Ringwood. Our 

analysis did not result in the identification of a site that had enough similar characteristics to 

compare. Therefore, we were unable to determine consistency with past Agency practices. 

13 
 

 

Appendix C 

Agency Comments on Draft Report 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 2 

DATE:	 September 20, 2007 

SUBJECT: Region 2 Comments on OIG Draft Report - Ringwood Mines 

FROM:	 Donna J. Vizian 

Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management /s/ 

TO:	 Carolyn Copper 

Office of Inspector General 

EPA Region 2 welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Office of the Inspector General’s draft 

Evaluation Report on the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund site. 

Region 2’s responses to each recommendation in the draft report are as follows: 

OIG Recommendation #1 

"We recommend that the Region 2 Administrator direct the Region’s Emergency and Remedial 

Response Division to conduct a follow-up Section 104 (e) request to Ford Motor Company 

requesting any relevant information regarding its waste disposal activities at Ringwood that Ford 

may still have and has not yet submitted. We also request that Ford certify that the information 

submitted is complete.” 

Region 2 Response 

Region 2 concurs; within ninety (90) days we will issue a follow-up Section 104(e) request to the 

Ford Motor Company requesting that Ford perform a review of all relevant and appropriate company 

files and provide EPA with any new information that Ford uncovers. Furthermore, EPA will 

demand that Ford certify that all information provided to EPA, including past submittals, is true, 

accurate and complete. It should be noted, however, that Ford has on at least two prior occasions 

supplemented its response to EPA’s original 104(e) request. Furthermore, Ford has a continuous, 

legal obligation to supplement its original response, if additional pertinent information is uncovered. 

14 
OIG Recommendation #2 

"We recommend that the Region 2 Administrator direct the Region’s Emergency and Remedial 

Response Division to notify the Ringwood community of the initiation and results of any future 5-

year reviews at the Ringwood site, consistent with EPA guidance.” 

Region 2 Response 

Region 2 concurs; consistent with EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, dated June 

2001, Region 2 will notify the community of any future 5-year review to be conducted at the 

Ringwood Mines/Landfill site. 

OIG Recommendation #3 

"We recommend that the Region 2 Administrator direct the Region’s Emergency and Remedial 

Response Division to comply with EPA’s Records Management Policy for creating written records 

of staff conversations with State officials and Site visits when these criteria apply to the conversation 

or Site visit that it 

•	 documents significant Agency decisions and commitments; 

•	 adds to a proper understanding of the formulation or execution of Agency actions, 

operations, and responsibilities; 

•	 conveys information of value on important Agency activities; 

•	 facilitates action by Agency staff; 

•	 provides key substantive comments on a draft; and 

•	 makes possible a proper scrutiny by Congress or the Agency.” 

Region 2 Response 

First, please note that the bulleted points quoted in the above recommendation are not from EPA’s 

Records Management Policy, rather are from EPA’s Records Management Manual, which is a 

separate document. In addition, the OIG on page 8 of the report states that “an information resource 

will be a record if it .....”, but the Records Management Manual states that “an information resource 

may be a record if it...” It is important to note the distinction between will vs. may. 

Region 2 believes that its Emergency and Remedial Response Division currently complies with 

EPA’s Records Management policies. Region 2 does document significant Agency decisions and 

commitments in writing and has done so at the Ringwood site. For example, January 17, 2007 email correspondence between the Region 2 Remedial Project Manager and a State official clearly 

documents in writing the decision to allow water generated during removal work in the SR-9 area of 

the Site to be discharged to the ground. Another example concerns the very contentious issue of 

vibrations monitoring. Although a number of site visits were conducted, the actual decisions were 

documented in letters from our Regional Administrator to the NJDEP Commissioner on May 11, 

2007 and May 17, 2007. 

15 
It should be noted that significant Agency decisions are made by Region 2 after consultation with 

appropriate EPA and NJDEP technical support staff. This is best accomplished by requiring the 

performing party to submit a work plan which details the proposed cleanup or investigatory work. 

The work plan is then reviewed by appropriate Region 2 and NJDEP staff and written comments are 

provided to the Region 2 Remedial Project Manager. Comments and concerns regarding the 

adequacy of the draft work plan are then compiled into a comment letter which is provided to the 

performing party. When the work plan is deemed acceptable to Region 2, an approval letter is 

provided to the performing party. Therefore, while written documentation of all conversations and 

site visits regarding a particular technical issue is not generated, written records which document 

Region 2’s decision-making process are generated and should be present in the Site files. If a 

significant decision regarding a technical issue is decided during a site visit, Region 2 will generate a 

memo to the file to document this. Otherwise, Region 2 will evaluate information collected during a 

site visit after completion of the visit and, if appropriate, a decision will be documented in writing to 

the appropriate party. 

Additional Comment 

Page 2, 2nd paragraph – This report indicates that since December 2004, Ford has removed over 

22,000 tons of paint sludge and soil. Please note that over 24,000 tons of paint sludge and soil have 

been removed by Ford during this timeframe. 

If you have any questions on the attached comments, please contact John Svec of my staff at (212) 

637-3699. 

16 
Appendix D 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 

Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 

Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Director, Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response 

Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, EPA Region 2 

Deputy Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, EPA Region 2 

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) 

Agency Followup Coordinator 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Followup Coordinator, EPA Region 2 

Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Director, Public Affairs Division, Region 2 

Acting Inspector General 

17