Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

Independent Environmental 

Sampling Shows Some 

Properties Designated by 

EPA as Available for Use 

Had Some Contamination 

Project No. 15-P-0221 July 21, 2015

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Cleaning Up Communities
Report Contributors: Christina Lovingood 

Patrick Milligan

Kathryn Hess 

Natasha-Ahsaki Henry

Bakari Baker

Abbreviations

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma

OIG Office of Inspector General 

RAU Ready for Anticipated Use

RCRA CA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action

XRF X-ray fluorescence

Cover photo: North 22nd Street Mixed Use Site, Tampa, Florida, in April 2013. 

Vacant lot is within a residential neighborhood. (EPA OIG photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program? 

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

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

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions

This is one of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General’s 

products related to assessing the EPA’s designations of sites with former or current 

contamination as being “ready for anticipated use.” For details on related reports, go to:

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140929-14-P-0364.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140926-14-N-0360.pdf
 15-P-0221

 July 21, 2015

Why We Did This Review

We sampled sites that were 

designated ready for reuse to 

determine whether the

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) data 

supporting the designations were

accurate. The sampling results

reported here were used to 

support two prior Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) reports:

(1) EPA Needs to Improve Its 

Process for Accurately 

Designating Land as Clean and 

Protective for Reuse, 

which assessed the EPA’s 

designations of sites with former 

or current contamination; and 

(2) Hyperspectral Imaging Can 

Be a Useful Evaluation Tool for 

Office of Inspector General 

Reviews Focused on 

Contaminated Land, which 

identified the usefulness of a tool

to identify certain conditions at 

contaminated sites. The 

complete sampling results are 

reported here for the first time.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goal or

cross-agency strategy:

 Cleaning up communities

and advancing sustainable

development.

Send all inquiries to our public

affairs office at (202) 566-2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig. 

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/ 

20150721-15-P-0221.pdf

Independent Environmental Sampling Shows 

Some Properties Designated by EPA as 

Available for Use Had Some Contamination 

 What We Found

The EPA OIG, in collaboration with scientists 

from the U.S. Geological Survey, conducted 

soil sampling at 21 Brownfields and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective 

Action sites in Florida and South Carolina (both 

in EPA Region 4) and in Louisiana and Texas 

(both in EPA Region 6). The OIG soil sample 

results are not EPA-validated data, but are 

considered screening-level data.

Most results of the soil samples we collected from sites that had been 

designated by the EPA as “ready for anticipated use” met the standards to 

protect human health. However, unexpectedly, some results showed 

contamination was present. Specifically, and commendably, 241 results, or 

95 percent, met standards, while 14 results, or 5 percent, did not meet 

standards. We did not expect soil samples at sites designated by EPA as ready 

for reuse to have the contamination our sampling detected. The contamination 

detected could result in the need to remove the sites’ designations as ready for 

reuse or other actions to ensure the sites are safe for humans. The OIG soil 

results that did not meet health standards need to be evaluated by the regions 

in the context of other site-specific information to determine whether changes in 

site designations or other actions need to be completed to ensure site 

protectiveness.

 Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that EPA Regions 4 and 6 add the information in this report to 

the appropriate site-specific case files. We also recommend that those regions

assess the soil sampling results that that did not meet the established 

standards in the context of other information on site conditions and uses, order 

confirmatory sampling if appropriate, and take action as needed with the site 

owners and states to ensure that the sites meet standards for their designated 

uses. Further, based on the outcomes, the two regions should reevaluate the 

sites’ ready-for-anticipated-use designations and modify as appropriate based 

on other actions recommended here. The agency agreed to take sufficient 

corrective actions, and actions on the recommendations have either been 

completed or are underway. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Some OIG sampling results 

showed contamination was 

still present at sites 

designated by the EPA as 

ready for reuse. This was 

unexpected and could signal 

a need to implement 

changes to ensure human 

health protection. 
July 21, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Independent Environmental Sampling Shows Some Properties Designated by EPA as 

Available for Use Had Some Contamination

Report No. 15-P-0221

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator

Region 4

Ron Curry, Regional Administrator

Region 6

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

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

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

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

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

In Region 4, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Division is responsible for the areas 

reviewed. In Region 6, the Superfund Division and the Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division are

responsible for the areas reviewed. 

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you provided agreed-to 

corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. Should you choose to 

provide a final response, we will post your response on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

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

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

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

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

corresponding justification. 

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

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Independent Environmental Sampling Shows 15-P-0221

Some Properties Designated by EPA as

Available for Use Had Some Contamination

Table of Contents

Purpose and Prior Reports....................................................................................... 1

Responsible Offices.................................................................................................. 1

Scope and Methodology........................................................................................... 1

Summary of Soil Sampling....................................................................................... 2

Recommendations ................................................................................................... 4

Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation .................... 5

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................ 6

 A Soil Sampling Results...................................................................................... 7

 B Site Visit Information........................................................................................ 11

 C Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ................................. 13

 D Distribution ....................................................................................................... 22

Appendices
15-P-0221 1

Purpose and Prior Reports

In 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) collected soil samples at 21 Brownfields and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action (RCRA CA) sites in four 

states—Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Texas. We did this sampling in 

collaboration with scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey. This sampling work 

was used to support work discussed in two previously issued OIG reports:

 EPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately Designating Land 

as Clean and Protective for Reuse (Report No. 14-P-0364), issued 

September 29, 2014: This sampling work was used as we assessed the 

EPA’s designations of sites as being “ready for anticipated use” (RAU). 

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140929-14-P-0364.pdf

 Hyperspectral Imaging Can Be a Useful Evaluation Tool for Office of 

Inspector General Reviews Focused on Contaminated Land

(Report No. 14-N-0360), issued September 26, 2014: This sampling work 

was used to evaluate the usefulness of hyperspectral imaging technology to 

identify certain conditions at contaminated sites. 

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140926-14-N-0360.pdf

Responsible Offices

In Region 4, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Division is responsible 

for the areas reviewed. In Region 6, the Superfund Division and the Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division are responsible for the areas reviewed.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our work from April 2013 to March 2015. We conducted this 

performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

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

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

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

objectives.

We contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey and conducted soil sampling in 

Regions 4 and 6 from April to August 2013. The soil sample results are not EPAvalidated data, but are considered screening-level data. We collected 2421

nearsurface grab samples in a rough, widely spaced grid that covered the sites. When 

available, we used a portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) unit to obtain a field scan 

 

1 Fifteen of the 242 X-ray fluorescence samples were analyzed for confirmatory sampling. Each of the 15 samples 

were analyzed for the presence of 17 different contaminants, for a total of 255 results.
15-P-0221 2

of the metal composition of the soil prior to taking each soil sample. Near where 

we observed high metal concentrations with the portable unit or observed stress in 

the vegetation, we departed from the grid-sampling pattern and took additional 

samples. For some sites we were unable to use the portable XRF because either 

the soil was too saturated with water from a rain event to obtain an accurate field 

scan or the unit needed calibration. All samples collected were dried and analyzed 

in a U.S. Geological Survey research laboratory with a mounted XRF unit. In July 

2013, we provided Region 4 the XRF results for the sites we sampled in Florida.2

We sent 15 of the soil samples we collected (6.2 percent) to an independent 

laboratory for confirmatory analysis by use of inductively coupled plasma (ICP) 

methods (EPA methods 3050 and 6010). Samples that presented high metal 

concentrations based on the XRF analysis were intentionally selected, along with 

a few additional random samples. 

Summary of Soil Sampling

Most of the ICP samples met standards established to protect human health. 

However, as shown in Table 1, some samples showed contamination that did not 

meet the standards. Specifically, and commendably, of the 255 total samples we 

reviewed, 14 samples, or 5 percent, did not meet standards.

Table 1: Summary of ICP Samples

State

Total

samples

Number of samples that

showed contamination 

not meeting standards

Florida 102 8

South Carolina 51 5

Louisiana 85 0

Texas 17 1

 Total 255 14

Source: OIG analysis.

The number of samples we collected and analyzed by ICP was limited. However, 

we did not expect soil samples at sites designated by the EPA as ready for reuse to 

have the contamination our sampling detected. The contamination detected could 

result in the need to remove the sites’ designations as RAU, or to take other 

actions to sustain site protectiveness. The OIG soil results that did not meet health 

standards need to be evaluated by the regions in the context of other site-specific 

information to determine whether changes in site designations or other actions 

need to be completed to ensure site protectiveness.

 

2 Soil sampling results at four sites showed contamination above the Florida soil cleanup target levels, including for 

arsenic, a known carcinogen. We reported the results to the EPA so that it could take any immediate steps it deemed 

appropriate to protect human health and the environment.
15-P-0221 3

The results of the ICP analysis are in Appendix A. Information on the sites we 

visited is in Appendix B. Below is a summary of our soil sampling results and 

activity in each of the four states.

Florida Soil Sample Results

In April 2013, we collected soil samples from five Brownfield sites in Florida that 

were designated RAU. We collected field measures with the portable XRF unit at 

all sites. We report on confirmatory 

ICP analyses performed on six 

samples collected at three sites. 

The concentration of barium in the one 

sample from the 22nd Street Mixed Use 

site showed contamination. Based on 

our XRF data, EPA Region 4 

conducted additional sampling, and its 

results showed contamination that did 

not meet the residential standards for 

arsenic, barium and lead in some 

samples. However, the region 

concluded that no additional action 

was needed.

For the Clearwater Automotive 

Salvage Yard site, where we obtained 

four samples, all four ICP results 

showed contamination that did not 

meet the residential standard for at 

least one metal—arsenic, copper or

lead. The arsenic in two samples was 

great enough to also not meet the 

industrial standard. Arsenic is known 

to cause cancer; copper can be harmful

at high levels, and exposure to lead 

can seriously harm a child’s health.

Based on our sampling results, EPA 

Region 4 agreed to conduct additional 

sampling at this site, but the site 

owner—the city of Clearwater—

denied access to EPA Region 4.

Contamination at Clearwater Site 

Could Pose Risk to Nearby Residents

We expected that metal concentrations would be low in 

the soil samples we collected at the Clearwater 

Automotive Salvage Yard site because the site records 

showed it had been cleaned up and was designated in 

EPA records as RAU. According to EPA’s records, the 

agency provided over $322,000 to the city of Clearwater 

for site assessment work, plus more than $45,000 and 

loans totaling $700,000 to clean up the site. Also, the city 

provided nearly $500,000 for assessment and cleanup. 

Therefore, in total, nearly $1.6 million was provided for 

assessing and cleaning up the site. On July 1, 2009, 

following completion of site assessment and cleanup 

activities, the state issued an order that declared that 

contaminants of concern in the soil—including arsenic—

met state residential standards. The order included no 

restrictions on residential development of the site and, 

when work started at the site in 2007, Clearwater 

anticipated using the site as a mixed-use development 

that included affordable housing. When we conducted our 

work in April 2013, we observed that the Clearwater site 

was adjacent to residential areas and was undeveloped, 

and site access was poorly controlled.

Clearwater Automotive Site, Clearwater, Florida, in 

April 2013. Vacant lot is within a residential 

neighborhood. (EPA OIG photo)
15-P-0221 4

South Carolina Soil Sample Results

In June 2013, we sampled seven sites in South Carolina—five Brownfield and 

two RCRA CA. We obtained field measures with the portable XRF unit at five 

sites. Confirmatory ICP analysis was performed on three samples. All ICP results 

showed at least one metal concentration that did not meet the standard. One 

sample, from the North Street Dump site, showed contamination that did not meet

the residential and industrial standards for arsenic. The other sample from this site 

showed contamination that did not meet the residential standard for lead. 

Chromium in both samples from the North Dump site and the one sample from 

neighboring Arkwright Mills showed contamination that did not meet the

industrial standard. However, the analyses were not conducted in a manner that 

allowed us to determine whether the chromium was in the more toxic form for 

which the standard is set.

Louisiana Soil Sample Results

In July 2013, we sampled five sites in Louisiana—two RCRA CA and three

Brownfield. We obtained field measures with the portable XRF unit at four sites. 

At the Marathon Petroleum Company RCRA CA site, the soil was too saturated 

with water from a rain event to obtain accurate field scans. Confirmatory ICP 

analysis was performed on five samples from four sites. All of the ICP results on 

these samples met the standards.

Texas Soil Sample Results

In August 2013, we sampled four sites in Texas—two RCRA CA and two 

Brownfield. The portable XRF unit was unavailable for field use, which 

prevented us from obtaining a field scan of the metal composition of the soil prior 

to sampling. Confirmatory ICP analysis was performed on one sample from the 

Cadiz/Lamar Brownfield site. The lead concentration in that sample did not meet 

the industrial standard.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Regional Administrators, Regions 4 and 6:

1. Add the information in this report to the appropriate site-specific case files 

for each of these sites.

2. Assess the soil sampling results that that did not meet the established 

standards in the context of other information on site conditions and uses, 

and order confirmatory sampling if appropriate. Take action as needed 

with the site owners and states to ensure that the sites meet standards for 

their designated uses.

3. Based on the outcome from implementing Recommendation 2, reevaluate 

the sites’ RAU designations and modify as appropriate.
15-P-0221 5

Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation

We received comments on the draft report from the Region 4 and Region 6 

Administrators on May 14, 2015, and met with regional management to discuss 

their comments. 

Based on our discussions with EPA regional management, we revised 

Recommendation 1, as shown above. Regional management provided a planned 

completion date, and Recommendation 1 is resolved with agreed-to corrective 

actions pending.

EPA regional management did not agree with Recommendations 2 and 3, 

indicating the OIG did not apply proper quality assurance protocols to the 

sampling, rendering EPA unable to verify the accuracy of the results. EPA did, 

however, meet the intent of Recommendations 2 and 3 as it did assess the 

usefulness of the OIG data and whether any action should be taken. In addition,

based on our discussions with regional management, we clarified in this report 

that the soil sample results are not EPA-validated data, but are considered 

screening-level data. We consider Recommendations 2 and 3 to be complete, and

they are closed upon issuance of this final report. We made changes to the report 

where appropriate. Appendix C contains the agency’s complete response and OIG 

comments on that response.
15-P-0221 6

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL 

MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

AgreedTo 

Amount

1 4 Add the information in this report to the 

appropriate site-specific case files for each of 

these sites.

O Regional Administrators,

Regions 4 and 6

9/30/15

2 4 Assess the soil sampling results that that did not 

meet the established standards in the context of 

other information on site conditions and uses, 

and order confirmatory sampling if appropriate. 

Take action as needed with the site owners and 

states to ensure that the sites meet standards for 

their designated uses.

C Regional Administrators,

Regions 4 and 6

5/14/15

3 4 Based on the outcome from implementing 

Recommendation 2, reevaluate the sites’ RAU 

designations and modify as appropriate.

C Regional Administrators,

Regions 4 and 6

5/14/15

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

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

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0221 7

Appendix A

Soil Sampling Results

Florida ICPa Soil Sampling Results

Florida Cleanup Target 

Level

22nd

Street 

Mixed 

Use 

St. 

Vincent 

de Paul Clearwater Automotive Salvage Yard

Metal

Residential 

(ppmb)

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Sample 2 

(ppm)

Sample 3 

(ppm)

Sample 4 

(ppm)

Antimony 27 370 <1.25c <1.25 <1.25 <1.25 <1.25 4.50

Arsenic 2.1 12 <6.24d <6.24d 6.57e 25.8f <6.24 16.4

Barium 120 130,000 136 13.5 93.1 73.7 76 53.5

Beryllium -- -- <0.299 <0.300 <0.300 <0.300 <0.299 <0.299

Cadmium 82 1,700 1.85 0.487 5.32 13.8 7.98 22.1

Chromium 210 470 12.8 8.90 12.8 57.6 20.3 42.7

Cobalt 1,700 42,000 0.357 0.589 4.15 2.84 2.58 17.7

Copper 150 89,000 27.8 15.7 62.8 98.7 155 1140

Lead 400 1,400 345 33.9 869 250 328 516

Mercury 3 17 <4.99d <4.99d <4.99d <4.99d <4.99d <4.99d

Molybdenum 440 11,000 <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.23

Nickel 340 35,000 2.54 142 11 65.4 25.3 143

Selenium 440 11,000 <0.873 <0.874 <0.874 <0.874 <0.873 <0.873

Silver 410 8,200 <2.49 <2.50 <2.50 <2.50 <2.49 <2.49

Thallium 6.1 150 <0.773 <0.774 <0.774 <0.774 <0.773 <0.773

Vanadium 67 10,000 1.58 25.2 6.34 <0.250 1.05 <0.249

Zinc 26,000 630,000 333 103 200 621 510 560

Latitude (decimal degrees) 27.97313 27.96528 27.96331 27.96298 27.96292 27.9624

Longitude (decimal degrees) -82.43443 -82.7928 -82.7913 -82.7912 -82.7916 -82.7916

Source: EPA OIG.

a EPA methods 3050 and 6010.

b ppm = parts per million = milligram per kilogram in soil.

c Results less than the analytical reporting level are designated by <, followed by the reporting limit.

d Analysis was performed with a higher reporting limit than the residential standard. 

e Values that show contamination that did not meet the residential standard are in yellow shade. 

f Values that show contamination that did not meet the industry standards are in gray shade.
15-P-0221 8

South Carolina ICP a Soil Sampling Results

EPA Standards North Street Dump Arkwright Mills

Metal

Residential 

(ppmb)

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Sample 2 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Antimony 31 410 <1.25c <1.25 <1.25

Arsenic 0.61 2.4 10.2d <6.24e <6.25e

Barium 15,000 190,000 207 157 162

Beryllium 160 2,000 0.536 <0.299 <0.300

Cadmium 70 800 7.40 9.04 2.62

Chromium 0.29f 5.6f 34.3 f 28.9 f 13.9 f

Cobalt 23 300 7.22 5.85 3.16

Copper 3,100 41,000 55.2 199 26.9

Lead 400 800 345 406g 125

Mercury 10 43 <4.99 <4.99 <5.00

Molybdenum 390 5,100 <6.24 <6.24 <6.25

Nickel 1,500 20,000 10.1 16.2 3.94

Selenium 390 5,100 <0.873 <0.873 <0.875

Silver 390 5100 <2.50 <2.49 <2.50

Thallium 0.78 10 <0.774 <0.773 <0.775

Vanadium 390 5,100 35.9 26.1 19.6

Zinc 23,000 310,000 355 338 383

Latitude (decimal degrees) 34.92029 34.92029 34.92551

Longitude (decimal degrees) -81.92716 -81.92730 -81.92975

Source: EPA OIG.

a EPA methods 3050 and 6010.

b ppm = parts per million = milligram per kilogram in soil.

c Results less than the analytical reporting level are designated by <, followed by the reporting limit.

d Values that show contamination that did not meet the industry standard are in gray shade. 

e Analysis was performed with a higher reporting limit than the residential standard. 

f Standards presented for chromium VI. The results are unspeciated. The EPA has not set standards for 

 total chromium.

g Value that shows contamination that did not meet the residential standards is in yellow shade.
15-P-0221 9

 Louisiana ICP a Soil Sampling Results

Louisiana Standards 2750 Nicholson Drive

1705 

Highland 

Road

Former 

Personal 

Touch 

Car Wash

Syngenta 

Crop 

Protection

Metal

Residential 

(ppmb)

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Sample 2 

(ppm)

Sample 1 

(ppm)

Sample1

(ppm)

Sample 1

(ppm)

Antimony 3.1 82 <1.25c <1.25 <1.25 <1.25 <1.25

Arsenic 12 12 <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.25

Barium 550 14,000 72.6 115 168 140 148

Beryllium 16 410 <0.300 <0.299 <0.300 <0.300 <0.300

Cadmium 3.9 100 1.12 1.73 2.66 2.34 1.75

Chromium 23d 610d 5.43 6.50 8.91 7.10 7.23

Cobalt 470 12,000 2.11 5.22 4.62 5.71 3.72

Copper 310 8,200 14.6 13.4 29.3 14.6 16.1

Lead 400 1,400 26.1 20.1 157 70.4 12.9

Mercury 2.3 61 <4.99e <4.99e <5.00e <4.99e <5.00e

Molybdenum -- -- <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.24 <6.25

Nickel 160 4,100 7.59 11.9 10.7 10.8 11.7

Selenium 39 1,000 <0.874 <0.873 <0.874 <0.874 <0.875

Silver 39 1,000 <2.50 <2.49 <2.50 <2.50 <2.50

Thallium 0.55 14 <0.774e <0.773e <0.774e <0.774e <0.775e

Vanadium 55 1,400 10.7 3.75 5.59 6.95 3.00

Zinc 2,300 61,000 50.2 59.9 259 76.6 295

Latitude (decimal degrees) 30.42225 30.42280 30.43224 30.43552 30.24115

Longitude (decimal degrees) -91.18794 -91.18817 -91.18264 -91.18507 -91.09788

 Source: EPA OIG.

a EPA methods 3050 and 6010.

b ppm = parts per million = milligram per kilogram in soil.

c Results less than the analytical reporting level are designated by <, followed by the reporting limit.

d Standards presented for chromium VI. The results are unspeciated. Louisiana has not set standards for total chromium.

e Analysis was performed with a higher reporting limit than the residential standard. 
15-P-0221 10

Texas ICP a Soil Sampling Results

Source: EPA OIG.

a EPA methods 3050 and 6010.

b ppm = parts per million = milligram per kilogram in soil.

c Results less than the analytical reporting level are designated by <, followed by 

 the reporting limit.

d Value that shows contamination that did not meet the industry standards is in gray shade.

e Analysis was performed with a higher reporting limit than the residential standard. 

Texas Protective 

Correction Levels

800 Cadiz/

1005 Lamar

Metal

Residential 

(ppmb)

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

(ppm) Sample 1 (ppm)

Antimony 15 310 < 1.25c

Arsenic 24 200 < 6.25

Barium 8,100 120,000 134

Beryllium 38 250 < 0.300

Cadmium 52 850 3.28

Chromium (total) 33,000 120,000 25.3

Cobalt 21 280 3.72

Copper 550 39,000 33.9

Lead 500 1,600 2,490d

Mercury 3.6 6.2 < 5.00e

Molybdenum 160 4,500 < 6.25

Nickel 840 8,800 8.95

Selenium 310 4,900 < 0.875

Silver 97 2,300 < 2.50

Thallium 6.3 78 < 0.775

Vanadium 76 620 5.76

Zinc 9,900 250,000 209

Latitude (decimal degrees) 32.77005

Longitude (decimal degrees) -96.79966
15-P-0221 11

Appendix B

Site Visit Information

Florida Sites

Site name Address

Number of 

samples analyzed

Date sampled

Laboratory 

XRF ICP

Blue Chip Bara

(Brownfield) 

1317 North Martin Luther 

King Jr. Ave., Clearwater

12 0 April 29, 2013

Clearwater Automotive 

Salvage Yarda

(Brownfield)

205, 317, and 319 South 

Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., 

Clearwater

9 4 April 29, 2013

St. Vincent de Paula

(Brownfield)

1015 Cleveland St., 

Clearwater

4 1 April 29, 2013

Pro-fit Developmenta

(Brownfield)

4407 Taliaferro Ave., Tampa 7 0 April 30, 2013

22nd Street Mixed Usea

(Brownfield)

3115 Holmes St., Tampa 20 1 April 30, 2013

Source: EPA OIG.

a The portable XRF was used at this site to guide our sampling.

South Carolina Sites

Site name Address

Number of 

samples analyzed

Date sampled

Laboratory 

XRF ICP

Taylor Street a

(Brownfield)

1221 Taylor St., Columbia 10 0 June 10, 2013

Roy Metal Finishing

Company a (RCRA CA)

112 Conestee Road,

Conestee

5 0 June 11, 2013

622/624 Green Avenue a

(Brownfield)

622/624 Green Ave., 

Greenville

9 0 June 11, 2013

Arkwright Mills a

(Brownfield)

971/975 South Liberty,

Spartanburg

8 1 June 12, 2013

North Street Dump 

(Brownfield)

971/975 South Liberty,

Spartanburg

6 2 June 12, 2013

IWG High Performance

Conductors a(RCRA CA)

1570 Compton Road, Inman 9 0 June 12, 2013

Union Mill (Brownfield) 201 N. Enterprise Drive,

Union

12 0 June 13, 2013

Source: EPA OIG.

a The portable XRF was used at this site to guide our sampling.
15-P-0221 12

Louisiana Sites

Site name Address

Number of

samples analyzed

Date 

sampled

Laboratory 

XRF ICP

2750 Nicholson Drivea

(Brownfield)

2750 Nicholson Drive, 

Baton Rouge

9 2 July 22, 2013

Marathon Petroleum 

Company, LLC (RCRA CA)

Highway 61 at 

Marathon Ave., 

Garyville

13 0 July 23, 2013

Syngenta Crop Protection, 

LLCa(RCRA CA)

3905 Highway 75, 

St. Gabriel

11 1 July 23, 2013

1705 Highland Roada

(Brownfield)

1705 Highland Road, 

Baton Rouge

6 1 July 24, 2013

Former Personal Touch Car 

Washa(Brownfield)

1320 Highland Road, 

Baton Rouge

8 1 July 24, 2013

Source: EPA OIG.

a The portable XRF was used at this site to guide our sampling.

Texas Sites

Site name Address

Number of 

samples analyzed

Date 

sampled

Laboratory 

XRF ICP

Former Transportation 

Maintenance Facility 

(Brownfield)

7215 New York Ave., 

Arlington

15 0 August 12, 2013

800 Cadiz/1005 Lamar 

(Brownfield)

800 Cadiz/1005 South 

Lamar St., Dallas

11 1 August 13, 2013

Sheppard Air Force Base 

(RCRA CA)

 Fire Training Area

 Former Landfill #2

 Former Landfill #3

111 D Ave., 

Wichita Falls 

Total 

Samples: 30

5

10

15

0 August 13, 2013

US Air Navy Joint Reserve 

Base (Carswell) (RCRA CA)

 Landing Field-23

 Landing Field-24

 Landing Field-25

 Landing Field-26 

Military Parkway, 

Fort Worth

Total 

Samples: 28

6

6

9

7

0 August 14, 2013

Source: EPA OIG.
15-P-0221 13

Appendix C

Agency Response to Draft Report 

and OIG Evaluation

May 14, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report “Independent 

Environmental Sampling Shows Some Properties Designated by EPA as 

Available for Use Had Some Contamination,” dated March 13, 2015

FROM: Heather McTeer Toney

Regional Administrator, Region 4

Ron Curry

Regional Administrator, Region 6

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

Inspector General

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

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

of the report recommendations. Regions 4 and 6 do not agree with the report recommendations 

and we have, therefore, explained our position and, as applicable, proposed alternatives to the 

recommendations. For your consideration, we have included a Technical Comments 

Attachment to supplement this response.

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION

To date, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has not supplied EPA with the information it 

needs to ensure its sample results were obtained following established EPA policy and consistent 

with mandatory Agency-wide Quality Systems requirements. Under these circumstances, EPA 

can neither rely on the accuracy of the OIG’s results, nor can it replicate those results to 

independently verify sample accuracy.

OIG Response 1: Although we explained our data collection and analysis methods to EPA 

regional management earlier in the evaluation, we agreed to make revisions to the Scope and 

Methodology section of this report to further explain the soil sampling we conducted and what 

those results represent.
15-P-0221 14

EPA Order CIO 2105.0, dated May 5, 2000, establishes Agency policy and program 

requirements for the preparation and implementation of organizational or programmatic 

management systems pertaining to quality and contains the minimum requirements for the 

mandatory Agency-wide Quality System. This policy requires participation by all the EPA 

organizations (office, region, national center or laboratory) supporting environmental programs 

and by non-EPA organizations performing work for EPA through extramural agreements. It 

further requires that all environmental programs performed by EPA or directly for EPA through 

EPA-funded extramural agreements be supported by individual quality systems that comply fully 

with the American National Standard ANSI/ASQC E4-1994, Specifications and Guidelines for 

Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs. 

This is a national consensus standard authorized by the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) and developed by the American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) and is widely 

followed, as well, by organizations outside of the EPA. The policy includes requirements for 

Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs), use of environmental data from other sources 

(secondary data), and establishing appropriate training for all levels of management and staff. All 

EPA Regions, including Regions 4 and 6, strive to produce data of known quality, through the 

use of current, project-specific QAPPs, with samples collected and properly handled in 

accordance with Standard Operating Procedures, to support EPA decisions and defend EPA 

actions. Deviation from these procedures can render data unusable due to such factors as crosscontamination of samples resulting from improper sample collection procedures, tampering with 

samples because of a lack of chain of custody requirements, or questions about laboratory 

practices when no data validation protocols are established.

For the subject report, as you know, we have had many conversations regarding, in particular, 

the OIG’s sampling efforts in Florida in 2013. We have raised serious concerns with your 

sampling protocols and have further detailed these concerns in the Technical Comments 

Attachment.

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Disagreements
15-P-0221 15

No. Recommendation Agency Explanation/Response Proposed Alternative

1 Provide our soil sampling 

results to the site owners and 

place these results in the 

EPA’s files for the sites.

The OIG/USGS did not apply 

proper quality assurance protocols 

for sampling activities, therefore 

the sampling results cannot be 

verified. 

The EPA will first label the 

Final Audit Report, 

“Independent 

Environmental Sampling 

Shows Some Properties 

Designated by EPA as 

Available for Use Had 

Some Contamination,” as 

unverified sampling, attach 

the Agency 

response/explanation and 

then add documents to 

appropriate programmatic 

files that are available, 

subject to applicable records 

retention schedules. 

The EPA will not contact 

sites/properties owners.

2 Assess the soil sampling 

results that are greater than 

the established standards in 

the context of other 

information on site conditions 

and uses, and order 

confirmatory sampling if 

appropriate. Take action as 

needed with the site owners 

and states to ensure that the 

sites meet standards for their 

designated uses.

The OIG/USGS did not apply 

proper quality assurance protocols 

for sampling activities, therefore 

the sampling results cannot be 

verified.

No actions or proposed 

alternative.

3 Based on the outcome from 

implementing 

Recommendation 2, 

reevaluate the sites’ RAU 

designations and modify as 

appropriate.

There is no verifiable data 

available to reevaluate the sites’ 

RAU designations. 

 

No actions or proposed 

alternative.
15-P-0221 16

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any additional questions regarding this response, please contact Michael Norman, 

Chief, RCRA Cleanup and Brownfields Branch in Region 4 at 404-562-8792 or Anthony Talton, 

Acting Associate Director, Revitalization and Resources Branch at 214-665-7205 in Region 6.

Attachment

cc: Dorothy Rayfield, Chief, Grants and Acquisition Management Branch, U. S. EPA Region 4

 Susan Jenkins, Chief, Accounting Services Section, U. S. EPA Region 6
15-P-0221 17

TECHNICAL COMMENTS ATTACHMENT

Background

On May 30, 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) contacted EPA Region 4 staff to 

provide an “early warning” that samples it had collected at three sites in Tampa and Clearwater, 

Florida indicated the presence of environmental contaminants at levels of concern. As EPA 

Region 4 staff began to inquire about the nature of the investigation, it became clear that several 

fundamental omissions of Agency quality assurance protocols raised serious questions about the 

validity of the data produced by the OIG. Despite these very serious shortcomings, EPA Region 

4 agreed to conduct sampling on the 22nd Street site in Tampa, FL. The property had not been 

sampled previously but had been the subject of a 2008 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

(ESA) through a Brownfields grant. The Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with the 

Agency’s All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule (40 CFR Part 312) and ASTM E1527-05, and the 

investigation did not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs). Prior to 

conducting the EPA assessment at 22nd Street, Region 4 reviewed the 2008 Phase I report, 

prepared a detailed QAPP, then traveled to the site to conduct soil sampling during the week of 

September 9, 2013. The results of this investigation identified 5 of the 37 samples collected with 

lead levels exceeding EPA risk-based standards but no samples were found to have elevated 

levels of arsenic, antimony or barium above the EPA’s levels. A risk evaluation of the data 

concluded that no further investigation or cleanup would be required. EPA Region 4 also 

attempted to conduct follow-up sampling at the Clearwater Auto Salvage property in Clearwater, 

FL, but was denied access because City of Clearwater staff maintain that the OIG had collected 

its samples without the City’s permission.

Regarding Region 6 Brownfields and RCRA site sampling activities, the Region could not verify 

the sample results, which included the 800 Cadiz/1200 Lamar brownfields site, since the data 

was not collected following the Agency’s Quality Assurance policy. 

Response to IG’s Findings and Recommendations

The OIG’s findings are based on two general levels of quasi-analytical results. The first level of 

results was obtained from soil samples collected on site and analyzed using a handheld x-ray 

fluorescence (XRF) device. The 2014 USGS report on which much of this audit report is based, 

entitled An Evaluation of Remote Sensing Technologies for the Detection of Residual

Contamination at Ready-for-Anticipated Use Sites, indicates that the XRF instrument provided 

“suspicious results,” and was sent back to the manufacturer for repair. The report also 

acknowledges that “the study was not setup in a way that the source of the unreliability of the 

XRF results could be determined.” As we understand the sequence of events, where samples 

could not be field screened due to site conditions or instrument calibration, samples were shipped 

to a USGS lab where they were dried, and analyzed with a lab-mounted XRF. It is not clear if all 

field samples were shipped to a lab to be dried and analyzed or just a subset of field samples 

(where either site soils were too wet or the XRF unit needed calibration). The second level of 

analysis took place at an undisclosed independent lab where a small subset of soil samples were 

tested using the inductively coupled plasma (ICP) method of analysis. 
15-P-0221 18

The basis for questioning the OIG’s analytical results lies in the many stringent requirements 

EPA has established for what we would consider valid, defensible, reproducible data and how 

this data is collected, analyzed and reported. The basis for this is the Quality Assurance Project 

Plan or QAPP. 

A site-specific or project-specific QAPP is an Agency requirement, yet apparently no such plan 

exists for the OIG’s project. The OIG has provided an unsigned 2008 U.S. Department of the 

Interior - USGS research project plan. It contains a reference, on page 5, to a QAPP, but based 

on our review of the document, does not meet the content requirements or the intent of an EPArequired QAPP. Shortcomings of the IG’s work include:

 No QAPP. Without a QAPP, the overall intended use of the data cannot be determined. 

The EPA requested copies of site-specific QAPPs, but the OIG only provided an 

unsigned 2008 USGS document entitled Research Implementation and Quality 

Assurance Project Plan: An Evaluation of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Technologies 

for the Detection of Fugitive Contamination at Selected Superfund Hazardous Waste 

Sites. This document appears to EPA to be an umbrella document prepared for a previous 

audit, where soil sampling was conducted to research the use of hyperspectral imagery as 

a possible remote sensing technology. The portion of the document identified as the 

Quality Assurance Project Plan does not meet EPA requirements to produce sufficient 

data of the quality necessary to characterize a site and adequately characterize site risks.

 No formal sampling plan. The OIG report states that samplers deviated from a proposed 

sampling grid where they observed conditions which might indicate greater 

contamination levels. Samples collected were reportedly grab samples. This approach of 

looking for “hot spots” does not reflect site-wide conditions or properly characterize a 

site. Randomized grab samples may be used to identify potential contaminants at a site 

but do not support site characterization. 

 Improper decontamination of sampling equipment. In calls with the OIG, Regional 

staff were told that the sampling team did not decontaminate sampling equipment 

between individual samples collected and/or did not use pre-cleaned instruments for each 

aliquot collected. Our discussion with the OIG’s project staff suggests samples were 

obtained with shovels and/or trowels and no decontamination of sampling equipment was 

performed between sample aliquots. When samples are collected in a manner contrary to 

accepted practices and equipment is not properly decontaminated, the potential for crosscontamination renders results invalid for all but the most cursory uses. Data of this 

quality does not satisfy EPA data quality standards and would not be released to the 

public as indicative of actual site conditions.

 Improper use of sample containers. In calls with the OIG, Regional staff were told that 

samples were collected and placed in plastic baggies as opposed to approved glassware 

provided by an analytical laboratory or a lab supply company.

 Improper and/or no use of required personnel protective equipment (PPE). Based on 

our calls with the OIG, Regional staff are concerned that standard operating procedures 

regarding the use of PPE may not have been followed. The EPA sampling standard 

operating procedures require, at a minimum, approved gloves which must be changed for 

each sample aliquot collected. Samples collected without the use of proper PPE are 

subject to cross-contamination and the results cannot be validated. 
15-P-0221 19

 Lack of chains of custody for samples. The OIG did not provide evidence of use of 

chain of custody seals or chain of custody paperwork, and Region 4 did not receive 

copies of the sample acceptance forms from the labs. This creates concern over sample 

integrity if sample containers were to be breached or otherwise opened between the time 

the samples were collected and eventually analyzed. Additionally, there is no evidence 

that samples were shipped at the required 4 degrees Celsius (+/- 2 degrees) or received at 

that temperature by the lab for ICP analysis. 

 No data validation. For samples shipped to the independent lab, there is no information 

about lab accreditation, no chain of custody, no information about PE samples, matrix 

spike/matrix spike duplicate analysis, rinsate blanks, trip blanks, sample temperature, etc. 

Nor have the Regions been provided a lab data validation package of analytical results or 

lab QA/QC information. Without this, data produced from these samples cannot be used 

to support Agency decision-making or used for public dissemination.

In short, without an approved QAPP and documentation to show that QAPP requirements were 

fully satisfied, there is no assurance about either the quality or reproducibility of the data. Region 

4 has previously requested that the OIG provide the data quality information discussed above, 

however, to date that information has not been forthcoming. Without that information, the OIG’s 

sample results can only be considered as draft or screening data. Per EPA Executive Order CIO 

2105.0 (formerly 5360.1 A2), the OIG’s data is of insufficient quality to support Agency 

decision making, and would not be released to the public.

Based on the above findings in response to the OIG’s recommendations, we would first request 

that the OIG make available all documentation which would be required to validate the data 

upon which it is basing its recommendations. This would include a complete QAPP which has 

been reviewed and signed by a person with the requisite qualifications. The QAPP would include 

a detailed sampling plan for each site, discussion of data quality goals and objectives (which 

would explain how its targeted sampling approach supports site characterization), chain of 

custody forms, results from analysis of trip blanks, rinsate blanks, performance evaluation 

samples, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analytical results, lab QA/QC documentation, field 

log books including photo documentation, lab data validation and so forth. If the information 

provided by the OIG meets the requirements set forth in EPA Executive Order CIO 2105.0, it 

will be incumbent upon the regions to address the OIG’s recommendations and take appropriate 

action for each site where the data show action is necessary. Those steps may include notifying 

State environmental regulatory agencies, property owners, former grantees, or the municipality 

in which the sites are located; conducting additional sampling investigations to reassess the sites 

(as funding permits); and revisiting the Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) determinations. 

Brief Discussion of Risk Assessment Practices

A consistent challenge in responding to the OIG’s concerns since our earliest discussions has 

been the OIG’s position that a single elevated reading or a number of elevated readings of a 

contaminant or contaminants justifies or even requires taking action such as notifying the 

property owner or changing the RAU status of the property. In fact, this is a challenge similar to 

what the Agency often experiences when trying to explain “risk” to the public. There are 

certainly times when EPA will take biased grab samples to try to determine if hazardous 
15-P-0221 20

substances are present at a site. However, this is merely an initial screening and cannot be used 

to make final site decisions or be used to notify the public. It merely provides a snapshot of 

aspects of the site and does not adequately characterize a site. It answers the question, “are there 

potentially hazardous substances present at the site,” but nothing more. When we conduct 

screening in this manner, it is always considered an initial site investigation and does not provide 

the rigorous level of detail required by this Agency for making decisions such as notifying the 

public or taking a response action. 

In looking at the OIG’s XRF levels for the Florida sites, we can use the Florida Soil Cleanup 

Target Levels (FLSCTLs) as a screening guide. There are many FLSCTLs which are applicable 

for use in site screening in that they are equal to our final risk based remedial levels, such as 

lead. For other chemicals however, the FLSCTLs are significantly lower than EPA risk based 

remedial levels such as arsenic, antimony and barium. In fact, some of the FLSCTLs are not 

based on actual risk calculations (antimony and arsenic for example) but on less rigorous factors. 

When a Brownfields grantee is enrolled in a state program, they are encouraged to use 

assessment and cleanup standards endorsed by their respective state (which, more often than not, 

are based on or defer to EPA’s standards). However, in evaluating whether EPA would take 

steps such as informing a property owner, we would defer to EPA’s toxicity based screening 

levels. For the Florida sites, our risk assessor states, “(f)or detected soil constituents, EPA 

Superfund uses toxicity based screening levels based on child only exposure. For constituents 

that fail this screen, EPA performs a risk assessment which assumes chronic (adult + child) 

exposure unless the particular constituent is known to cause developmental effects that could 

occur in a shorter exposure duration. For lead in soil, the toxic effect of concern is to young 

children; thus the residential soil screening level is equivalent to the recommended remedial 

level for residential soil. Arsenic, antimony, and barium are not developmental toxicants, and 

therefore EPA’s recommended risk-based remedial levels for residential soil are higher than the 

initial (FLSCTL) screening levels.”

Upon review of the OIG’s XRF data for the Florida sites and comparing to EPA’s risk based 

levels, there is a solitary exceedance of the EPA Removal Management Level (RML) for arsenic 

at Clearwater Automotive which is less than 2 parts per million (ppm) above the risk level of 67 

ppm, one (1) exceedance for the RML for lead at 22nd Street and six (6) exceedances for lead at 

Clearwater Automotive. An EPA Region 4 risk assessor looked at the entire set of XRF results 

for each Florida site. Averaging the contaminant levels across each site, the risk assessor 

concluded that there is no basis for the OIG’s concerns. There are elevated readings but the 

levels are not consistently high enough to warrant implementing the OIG’s recommended 

actions. In other words, the IG screening data does not adequately characterize site risk and, in

and of themselves, are not sufficiently elevated to present a human health risk. This is further 

supported by Region 4’s assessment at 22nd Street where only five (5) samples of the 37 sample 

locations exceeded the RML for lead and there were no exceedances for antimony, arsenic or 

barium.

Conclusion

EPA Order CIO 2105.0, dated May 5, 2000 establishes EPA’s Agency-wide quality system and 

applies to all EPA organizations and non-EPA organizations performing work on behalf of EPA. 
15-P-0221 21

Data obtained which does not adhere to this standard cannot be used as a basis for decision 

making. To date, the OIG has not provided information which supports use of the data in the 

manner proposed by the OIG. The OIG continues to maintain that elevated readings, in and of 

themselves, are a basis for taking action. This contradicts the Agency’s risk-based model for 

decision making. Subsequent sampling conducted by Region 4 further discredits the OIG’s 

findings. 

OIG Response 2: We agree that our sampling results are screening data and should be used 

for the purpose stated in the agency’s response. 

We do not agree that Region 4’s subsequent sampling discredits our findings. Region 4 agreed 

to conduct confirmatory sampling at a couple of the Florida sites we sampled. Due to access 

issues, the region collected samples at only one site, 22nd Street Mixed Use. The region’s 

results showed contamination above the Florida residential cleanup target levels for arsenic, 

barium and lead in some samples. Overall, these exceedances of the state cleanup target levels 

agreed with OIG sampling results.

Based on these facts, the only action EPA can take at this time is to review the supporting data 

quality information as described and requested above. In the absence of an approved Quality

Assurance Project Plan, no further steps are supportable based on the screening information 

provided by the OIG.
15-P-0221 22

Appendix D

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Regional Administrator, Region 4

Regional Administrator, Region 6

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6

Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

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

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 4

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 6