Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

Benefits of EPA Initiative to 

Promote Renewable Energy 

on Contaminated Lands 

Have Not Been Established

Report No. 15-P-0198 July 16, 2015

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Sustainable Development
Report Contributors: Jenny Drzewiecki

Chad Kincheloe

Tina Lovingood

Roopa Mulchandani

Kate Robinson

Jill Trynosky

Abbreviations

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Cover photo: Ground-mounted solar photovoltaic system installed at the 

Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Site, Davis, California. (EPA 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
 15-P-0198

July 16, 2015

Why We Did This Review

We evaluated how the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) set and 

measured specific goals for its 

activities related to siting 

renewable energy on potentially

contaminated land and mine 

sites (hereafter referred to as 

contaminated lands), such as 

economic and environmental 

return on investment, and 

whether siting efforts ensure

short- and long-term health and 

environmental protection on 

these contaminated sites.

In 2008, the EPA’s Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response launched the 

RE-Powering America’s Land 

Initiative, through which the EPA 

encourages renewable energy 

development on contaminated 

lands. Renewable energy is 

energy obtained from sources 

that can be continually 

replenished, such as solar, wind 

and biomass. 

This report addresses the

following EPA goal or 

cross-agency strategy:

 Cleaning up communities 

and advancing sustainable 

development.

For further information,

contact our public affairs office 

at (202) 566-2391.

The full report is at:

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

20150716-15-P-0198.pdf

 

Benefits of EPA Initiative to Promote Renewable Energy 

on Contaminated Lands Have Not Been Established

 What We Found

The EPA sets specific goals for its program 

activities related to promoting and providing 

education and outreach for siting renewable 

energy on contaminated lands through its 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative. However, 

the EPA does not have a mechanism to measure 

the outcomes of accomplishing initiative goals,

nor does it have information on the return on 

investment realized for the activities completed or 

resources the agency stated it has invested.

Regarding the return on investment, the EPA stated it has invested $4 million in the

initiative, including just over $2.5 million to support more than 40 feasibility studies

that provide site owners and communities with a technical and economic assessment 

of installing renewable energy on a given site, and development of initiative tools.

Seventy-six percent of the studies completed showed some potential for siting 

renewable energy on contaminated lands. However, the EPA was aware of only two

sites with renewable energy that benefitted from feasibility studies. Consumer 

awareness or use of initiative tools could also be an indicator of return on investment. 

Four of seven external parties involved with siting renewable energy on contaminated 

lands with whom we spoke were unaware of the initiative or did not use the tools it 

provides. Without benefits information and consumer awareness or utility, the EPA is 

unable to demonstrate results of the initiative and support continuing the program.

The EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative does not address human health 

and environmental protection issues when renewable energy is sited on 

contaminated lands. However, the initiative could refer to guidance from other EPA 

programs that have such controls, including periodic reviews or monitoring, to 

maintain protectiveness. 

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA determine whether the benefits from its renewable 

energy promotion efforts demonstrate the value of the RE-Powering initiative. If 

benefits cannot be demonstrated, the EPA should modify or terminate the program. 

If the EPA continues with this initiative, it should establish management controls to 

measure and report on progress, use available data to track and report on economic 

and environmental benefits realized, and refer participants to EPA guidance covering 

human health and environmental protection. The agency provided sufficient planned 

corrective actions and estimated completion dates for all of our recommendations. All 

recommendations are considered resolved and open with corrective actions ongoing. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

EPA does not know the 

benefits realized from its 

efforts to promote siting 

renewable energy on 

contaminated lands. As a 

result, the agency is unable 

to demonstrate benefits 

realized for the $4 million it 

stated it has invested in 

these efforts since 2008. 
July 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Benefits of EPA Initiative to Promote Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands 

Have Not Been Established

Report No. 15-P-0198

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

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

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

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

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

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

The EPA office having primary responsibility over the issues discussed in this report is the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s Center for Program Analysis.

Action Required

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

corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. The OIG may make 

periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Should you choose to 

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

memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your response as an Adobe PDF file 

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

amended. 

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

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Benefits of EPA Initiative to Promote Renewable Energy 15-P-0198

on Contaminated Lands Have Not Been Established

Table of Contents

Chapters

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

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

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

Responsible Office..................................................................................... 2

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

2 EPA Needs to Determine Program Value

and Improve Its Program Website .................................................................. 4

EPA Lacks a Mechanism to Systematically Track Program Goals 

 and Measure Program Benefits........................................................... 4

Initiative Does Not Clearly Address Human Health and 

 Environmental Protection .................................................................... 8

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 9

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

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

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

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments................................. 12

B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 20
15-P-0198 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation was to answer the following questions:

 Does the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set and measure 

specific goals for its program activities related to siting renewable energy 

on potentially contaminated land and mine sites,

1

including, for example, 

economic or environmental return on investment?

 Do the EPA’s efforts to promote siting renewable energy on potentially

contaminated land and mine sites ensure short- and long-term human 

health and environmental protection on these contaminated sites?

Background

In 2008, the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

launched the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative. Through this initiative, the 

EPA has encouraged renewable energy development on current and formerly 

contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites (referred to hereafter as contaminated 

lands). According to the EPA, the siting of renewable energy on contaminated 

lands can reduce the demand for development on agricultural land, which protects 

watersheds and wetlands and provides habitat as well as raw resources and food. 

Some examples of expected benefits or return on investment of siting renewable 

energy on contaminated lands include: reduction of remediation costs, avoidance 

of air emissions for the energy provided, a solar farm at a landfill that will 

generate electricity equivalent to powering 365 homes year-round, a solar 

installation where some of the construction jobs to erect the solar array were to go 

to residents of local affordable housing units, and a solar array that is expected to 

save a township about $13 million in energy costs over 15 years.

Renewable energy is obtained from sources that can be continually replenished, 

such as solar, wind and biomass. Contaminated lands considered for renewable 

energy potential include sites in the EPA’s Brownfields, Resource Conservation 

and Recovery, Superfund, Landfill Methane Outreach and Abandoned Mine 

Lands cleanup programs.

 

1 The EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land website references both “siting renewable energy on potentially 

contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites” and “encouraging renewable energy development on current and 

formerly contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites.” The phrases “potentially contaminated lands, landfills, and 

mine sites” and “current and formerly contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites” are used interchangeably in this 

report. 
15-P-0198 2

Contaminated land and mine sites can threaten human health and the 

environment. For example, contaminated soils can leach toxic chemicals into 

nearby ground or surface waters, where these materials can be taken up by plants 

and animals, contaminate a human drinking water supply, or volatilize and 

contaminate the indoor air in overlying buildings. Contaminants at mine sites 

could include arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc, asbestos or nickel.2 Further, some 

mine sites pose the threat of radiation exposure to humans. 

The initiative’s efforts to promote renewable energy on contaminated lands are 

focused on encouraging future projects as well as providing educational materials 

on its website3and conducting outreach to developers, landowners and other 

stakeholders. Some of these educational online tools include a list that provides 

information for over 66,000 sites screened for renewable energy potential, a 

finance fact sheet, best practice documents and success stories. Initiative outreach 

activities include attending conferences, hosting webinars, soliciting stakeholder 

feedback and responding to stakeholder inquiries.

According to initiative staff, approximately 21 people work on the initiative and 

the EPA’s renewable energy efforts. This group includes approximately two fulltime staff in EPA headquarters and 19 staff who assist with EPA renewable 

energy efforts in conjunction with their primary job duties. The 19 staff are 

located in the 10 EPA regions and in EPA offices, including: Federal Facilities, 

Brownfields, Enforcement, Resource Conservation and Recovery, Superfund 

Redevelopment Initiative, Abandoned Mine Lands and Underground Storage 

Tanks. In addition, according to initiative staff, since 2008 the EPA has funded, 

on average, $240,000 per year for contract support, and an additional $2.5 million 

to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) for conducting studies on the feasibility of renewable energy production 

on contaminated lands. The initiative staff is working to implement management 

plans, and periodically updates a tracking matrix that tracks renewable energy that 

has been sited on contaminated lands.

Responsible Office

OSWER’s Center for Program Analysis is responsible for implementing the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our work from July 2014 to April 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 

 

2 Superfund Information Systems, Contaminants of Concern at Annapolis Lead Mine & Atlas Asbestos Mine, 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0702917 and 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0901736. 

3 RE-Powering America’s Land: http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/. 
15-P-0198 3

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 interviewed EPA staff and management in the following OSWER offices or 

initiatives: 

 RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative.

 Green Remediation.

 Abandoned Mine Lands Team.

 Brownfields.

 Resource Conservation and Recovery.

 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative. 

In addition, we interviewed EPA staff in Regions 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9. 

We reviewed statutes, executive orders and guidance related to siting renewable 

energy on contaminated lands and EPA land cleanup programs. We also reviewed 

documentation relating to the initiative, including stakeholder feedback and an 

evaluation scoping study example. In addition, we reviewed initiative 

management plans to identify what goals have been set and how the EPA 

measures completion of those goals, including outcomes generated by 

accomplishing the goals. We conducted visits at two Superfund sites in Region 9 

to gain a better understanding of how siting renewable energy on contaminated 

lands works. Further, we interviewed external parties involved with siting 

renewable energy on contaminated lands, including industry engineers and 

developers, staff from the state of Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental 

Protection, the U.S. Department of Energy’s NREL, and a city director for a wind 

and solar renewable energy site.
15-P-0198 4

Chapter 2

EPA Needs to Determine Program Value

and Improve Its Program Website

The EPA sets specific goals for its program activities related to the promotion, 

education and outreach of siting renewable energy on potentially contaminated 

lands through its RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative Management Plan.

According to EPA staff, the agency has made staff and monetary investments of 

at least $4 million since 2008 for its initiative activities. However, the EPA does 

not have a mechanism to measure benefits (or return on investment) realized from 

accomplishing goals in its Management Plan or from the resources invested. As a 

result, the EPA does not have information on benefits and is unable to 

demonstrate benefits realized for the $4 million the agency stated it has invested 

in these efforts. Further, the initiative website does not include a section 

addressing human health and environmental protection issues when renewable 

energy is sited on contaminated lands. 

EPA Lacks a Mechanism to Systematically Track Program Goals and 

Measure Program Benefits

Management Action Plans are Close to Complete, But Key Action 

Supporting Results Determination Is Incomplete

The EPA used Management Plans to set initiative goals. The initiative’s 

Management Plans are periodically developed and outline activities the initiative 

plans to pursue over a period of 2 years. First issued was the 2010 Management 

Plan, and more recently a 2014 Action Plan (issued October 2014). For the 

purposes of our evaluation, we reviewed the 2010 Management Plan to measure

the initiative’s progress in completing its goals, since the 2014 plan is still 

ongoing. The 2010 plan had three goals (see box

at left.) Each goal had corresponding action

items, and 19 of the 20 actions have been 

completed. Completed actions included

developing guidance for siting renewable energy 

on landfills, enhanced outreach to tribes, and 

developing case studies.

Although initiative staff were able to provide us 

information on actions completed from the 

EPA’s 2010 Management Plan, the EPA has not 

addressed how these completed actions 

systematically track the accomplishment of goals 

outlined in the same document, or the outcomes 

Goals From EPA’s 2010 

Management Plan

 Goal 1: Provide Incentives and Technical 

Assistance for Siting Renewable Energy on 

Contaminated Land

 Goal 2: Create Unified Federal Approach to 

Promote Siting of Renewable Energy on 

Contaminated Land

 Goal 3: Improve Communication and 

Sharing of Data on Siting Renewable 

Energy on Contaminated Land to Enable 

Stakeholders to Successfully Reuse Sites 

for Renewable Energy
15-P-0198 5

generated by accomplishing its goals. Staff informed us that they have put in 

place processes and procedures to check progress against established milestones,

including weekly updates, bi-weekly or monthly meetings, regular review and 

reporting of financials associated with the initiative, and employee accountability 

through performance standards. However, these controls did not measure progress 

toward the initiative’s goals so management or oversight bodies could determine 

whether they had been met. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123

defines management’s responsibility for internal controls in federal agencies,

including control activities. Control activities include policies, procedures and 

mechanisms in place to help ensure that the agency objectives are met.

According to the EPA, the one action not 

completed from the 2010 Management 

Plan is to “Evaluate the Effectiveness of 

RE-Powering Initiative.” This action was

carried over to the 2014 plan (see box at 

right) under Goal 2 and has a projected 

completion date of winter 2015. 

Completing this action could help 

determine the return on investment of the 

initiative. Some progress on this action 

item has been made. An evaluation 

scoping assessment, which was completed on April 16, 2015, was a study

designed to identify existing data that could be used to conduct an outcome 

evaluation, and identify any new data that would be required to evaluate the 

program’s outcomes. Initiative staff stated that once the evaluation scoping 

assessment was completed, another evaluation study would be conducted to 

address how initiative activities are linked to outcomes (see Figure 1). Slow 

progress in completing the evaluation studies has resulted in a delay in 

determining the effectiveness of the initiative.

Figure 1: EPA steps to evaluate effectiveness of RE-Powering Initiative

Source: OIG analysis of EPA documentation.

2010 Managment 

Plan

Includes Action: 

Evaluate the 

Effectiveness of 

RE-Powering 

Initiative 

2014 Management 

Plan 

Includes Action: 

Evaluate the 

Effectiveness of 

RE-Powering 

Initiative 

Evaluation 

Scoping 

Assessment

To Determine 

Data Sets 

Available and 

New Data 

Required to 

Assess Outcomes

Outcome 

Evaluation Study

To Determine 

Effectiveness of 

Initiative

Not Completed Not Completed Completed Not Completed

Goals From EPA’s 2014 

Management Plan

 Goal 1: Provide Technical and 

Programmatic Assistance

 Goal 2: Promote Policies and Best 

Practices That Encourage Renewable 

Energy on Contaminated Lands

 Goal 3: Partner with Stakeholders 

and Leverage Agency Efforts
15-P-0198 6

An action item in the 2010 Management Plan that will assist the EPA in 

determining benefits is to “Track Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands 

Projects and Collect Specific Data That Can be Used to Measure Progress and 

Environmental Benefits.” According to initiative staff, the action is complete.

The initiative tracks renewable energy on contaminated lands through its 

RE-Powering Tracking Matrix (latest version April 2015). The Tracking Matrix

from April 2015 lists 151 renewable energy installations, and includes examples 

of environmental and/or economic benefits expected or realized at contaminated 

sites with renewable energy installations recorded. The initiative also maintains 

an internal document that tracks economic benefits, and the EPA relies on 

developers to voluntarily report in publicly available sources—such as newspaper 

articles—for approximately half of the installations in the Tracking Matrix. The 

information in the Tracking Matrix is therefore not comprehensive or verified and 

tested for accuracy.

EPA Lacks Return on Investment Information 

Despite some accomplishments reported, the EPA does not report the benefits 

realized from the initiative’s accomplished goals, objectives or actions and, 

therefore, does not demonstrate the value of the program.

Initiative staff report program accomplishments through OSWER and Initiative 

Accomplishments Reports. The reports included limited details on accomplished 

goals, objectives or actions, and lacked information on benefits realized from 

efforts. The 2012 OSWER Accomplishments Report included a brief mention of 

three initiative tools released: Screening Sites for Solar PV Potential, Screening 

Sites for Wind Energy Potential and Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy 

Projects While Addressing Environmental Issues. The 2013 OSWER 

Accomplishments Report provided background information on the initiative. The 

April 2013 Initiative Accomplishments Report (the first and latest version)

included accomplishments for some—but not all—goals, objectives or actions as 

outlined in the 2010 Management Plan. For example:

 The goal to provide technical assistance was accomplished by developing 

the Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy Projects While Addressing 

Environmental Issues.

 The goal of assisting communities was accomplished by developing fact 

sheets and screening sites for the interactive tool that maps potential 

renewable energy sites.

 The goal of enhanced coordination and collaboration was accomplished by 

working with federal agencies on specific sites and opportunities to model 

the land reuse and renewable energy development the initiative seeks. 
15-P-0198 7

To better understand potential benefits offered by the EPA’s promotional tools,

we asked external parties about their familiarity and usage of the initiative’s

website and tools. We interviewed seven external stakeholders, who provided 

mixed feedback. Three of the seven were familiar with initiative tools and 

provided positive feedback, but the other four were unaware of or did not use the 

tools. Main reasons for the stakeholders’ lack of awareness or use was that they 

were involved with siting renewable energy projects prior to the start of the 

initiative in 2008, the tools were outdated for their use, or the stakeholders had 

limited interaction with the EPA for siting renewable energy projects. 

Funding for the initiative has included support for contractors and an interagency 

agreement with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). According to 

EPA staff, contract support has averaged $240,000 per year, and the EPA has 

funded NREL just over $2.5 million since 2008. NREL conducted studies that

evaluated the feasibility of developing renewable energy production on Superfund, 

brownfields, and former landfill or mining sites. Examples of information included 

in feasibility studies are: technical and economic opportunities and challenges at a 

site, preliminary analysis of the viability of a site, renewable energy resource 

availability, possible renewable energy system size and location, and economics of 

installing the proposed renewable energy system. 

NREL has completed 42 feasibility studies for the initiative, and 32 of the completed 

studies concluded renewable energy development was feasible or suitable. Of the 42 

studies completed, one study was completed for a few regions of the country and two 

studies were completed for one site. According to NREL, approximately five 

feasibility studies are planned for the future. Studies have varying start times, and a

single study could take as long as a year and a half to complete. NREL informed us 

that costs to have a feasibility study conducted depend on the technology, the 

specific site characteristics and any potential issues at the site. An estimate for

determining the feasibility of solar development on a site can range from $7,500 to

$30,000, while costs for a feasibility study of wind development can range from 

$30,000 to $75,000.

Once NREL completes a feasibility study, it provides the study to the EPA and 

the agency posts it to the initiative’s website. According to initiative staff, studies 

serve as a means to engage communities and developers in possible renewable 

energy projects. Initiative staff stated that there is a time lag between when a 

study is completed and when renewable energy may be sited. Initiative staff were 

aware of only two sites that had renewable energy developments that benefitted 

from feasibility studies.

The EPA’s staff investment includes approximately two full-time individuals in 

headquarters and 19 who work on the initiative or EPA renewable energy efforts 

in conjunction with their primary duties, including representation in each of the 

EPA’s 10 regions. According to the EPA, there are no separate time reporting 

codes to track time spent working on the initiative or renewable energy-related 
15-P-0198 8

work. Regional staff interviewed indicated they spent an average of 10 percent of 

their time on initiative or renewable energy-related activities.

Despite the staff and funding invested by the EPA, the agency does not have 

information on benefits of its program activities related to the promotion of siting 

renewable energy on contaminated lands. Its action item to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the initiative began in 2010 and is not set to be completed until 

winter 2015. The EPA has not made substantial progress in measuring benefits 

resulting from its investment in initiative efforts.

Initiative Does Not Clearly Address Human Health and Environmental 

Protection 

Initiative Does Not Communicate Human Health and Environmental 

Protection Issues 

The initiative’s website does not feature a section related to human health and 

environmental protection issues as they relate to siting renewable energy on 

contaminated lands. There are some educational materials on the initiative 

website that include human health and environmental protection issues for 

developers to consider when siting renewable energy on contaminated lands

(see sidebar below for example). However, absent a designated section identifying 

resources available that address protectiveness issues when siting, it could be 

difficult for a user of the website—such as a developer or other external 

stakeholder—to locate these types of resources. 

Initiative Not Designed to Ensure Protectiveness, But EPA Has 

Controls to Maintain Protectiveness at Contaminated Sites 

According to initiative staff, contaminated sites with renewable energy 

development on them are treated in the same manner as contaminated sites with 

any other reuse development. There are follow-up requirements to monitor the 

impact or potential impact of siting a renewable energy system—such as solar or 

wind—on a contaminated site. The EPA has controls designed to protect human 

health and the environment at contaminated sites with or without renewable 

The Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy Projects While Addressing 

Environmental Issues describes addressing environmental site issues. 

For example: 

 “Renewable energy development must be designed to accommodate any 

engineered (e.g., landfill cap) or ICs [institutional controls] (e.g., restrictive 

covenants) implemented as part of the cleanup to ensure there is no risk to 

human health or the environment.”

 “If groundwater treatment is complete but monitoring is ongoing, renewable 

energy development may also occur as long as monitoring wells remain 

accessible and undisturbed.”
15-P-0198 9

energy, including: Superfund 5-year reviews, institutional and/or engineering 

controls, or operations and maintenance checks. 

The EPA is not required to conduct follow-up activities to determine whether a 

renewable energy system has impacted human health or environmental protection 

at a site unless the renewable energy system affects the integrity of the cleanup 

remedy. Since the initiative’s promotion efforts focus on education and outreach, 

the EPA is less involved in the decision to site renewable energy and, therefore, 

less involved once siting occurs. Site-specific monitoring can be performed by the 

oversight authority, which could be the EPA or a state. 

According to the EPA, the initiative was not designed to ensure human health and 

environmental protectiveness. Its efforts focus on promotion, education and 

outreach regarding siting renewable energy on contaminated lands. However,

some OSWER programs have monitoring in place to ensure and maintain 

protectiveness at contaminated sites.

Conclusions

EPA staff and funding have been invested in the RE-Powering America’s Land 

Initiative since 2008, but actions to evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative have 

been delayed and are incomplete. While there are benefits from renewable energy 

and potential benefits from siting renewable energy on contaminated lands, the EPA 

has not assessed the value of its efforts to support these endeavors. Four of seven 

external parties surveyed involved with siting renewable energy on contaminated 

lands have shown limited awareness or use of the information and tools that the EPA 

provides on siting renewable energy on contaminated lands. EPA documents include 

human health and environmental factors to consider when siting renewable energy 

on contaminated lands, but the initiative’s website did not include a listing of which

documents contain these factors. Identifying these documents supports efforts to 

protect human health and the environment in decisions to site renewable energy on 

contaminated lands. The EPA needs to determine benefits from the initiative. Doing 

so will better inform decision makers—including EPA management—on the 

continued need for or redesign of the initiative. The EPA already has invested more 

than $4 million on the entire initiative effort since 2008.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

1. Determine whether benefits from its investment of program resources in 

renewable energy promotion, education and outreach efforts outlined in 

the Management Plan demonstrate the value of the RE-Powering 

America’s Land Initiative. If benefits cannot be demonstrated for the 

initiative, the EPA should modify or terminate the program.
15-P-0198 10

If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in its current or modified form, 

we recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response:

2. Establish management controls to measure progress and publicly report 

how the EPA is accomplishing its goals, objectives and actions for its 

renewable energy promotion, education and outreach efforts, as outlined 

in the EPA’s current and future versions of the RE-Powering America’s 

Land Initiative Management Plan.

3. Use available data from sites that have had renewable energy development 

and are under EPA oversight to track and publicly report on economic and

environmental benefits realized at sites.

4. Include on the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative website a section 

covering human health and environmental protection as they relate to 

siting renewable energy on potentially contaminated lands, landfills and 

mine sites. Include, at a minimum, references to information such as: 

a. EPA controls for ensuring and maintaining protectiveness at 

contaminated sites, including landowner and oversight authority 

roles.

b. Engineering design considerations.

c. Frequently asked questions and answers on how to report or seek 

assistance for human health or environmental protection issues 

when siting.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

The agency disagreed with the wording of Recommendations 1 and 2, but 

provided corrective actions and estimated completion dates that meet the intent of 

the recommendations. The agency agreed with Recommendations 3 and 4, and 

provided corrective actions and estimated completion dates that meet the intent of 

the recommendations. All four recommendations are considered resolved and 

open with corrective actions ongoing. The agency’s response to our draft report 

and our comments are in Appendix A. We have incorporated agency comments, 

where appropriate, into our report.
15-P-0198 11

Status of Recommendations and

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 9 Determine whether benefits from its investment of 

program resources in renewable energy promotion, 

education and outreach efforts outlined in the 

Management Plan demonstrate the value of the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative. If benefits 

cannot be demonstrated for the initiative, the EPA 

should modify or terminate the program.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

3/31/16

2 10 If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in 

its current or modified form, establish management 

controls to measure progress and publicly report 

how the EPA is accomplishing its goals, objectives 

and actions for its renewable energy promotion, 

education, and outreach efforts, as outlined in the 

EPA’s current and future versions of the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative 

Management Plan.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

12/31/15

3 10 If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in 

its current or modified form, use available data from 

sites that have had renewable energy development 

and are under EPA oversight to track and publicly

report on economic and environmental benefits 

realized at sites.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

3/31/16

4 10 If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in 

its current or modified form, include on the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative website a 

section covering human health and environmental 

protection as they relate to siting renewable energy 

on potentially contaminated lands, landfills and 

mine sites. Include, at a minimum, references to

information such as:

a. EPA controls for ensuring and maintaining 

protectiveness at contaminated sites, 

including landowner and oversight authority 

roles.

b. Engineering design considerations.

c. Frequently-asked questions and answers on 

how to report or seek assistance for human 

health or environmental protection issues 

when siting.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

12/31/15

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

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

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
15-P-0198 12

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments

The text of the EPA response, along with our analysis, is provided below.

May 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report Benefits of EPA Initiative to

Promote Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands Have Not Been Established

No. OPE-FY14-0043

FROM: Mathy Stanislaus/s/ 

Assistant Administrator

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

Inspector General

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

evaluation report. Following is a summary of our overall position and perspective on some of 

the issues raised in this draft evaluation. In addition, we provide our position on each of the 

report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which we agree, we have 

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

can. For those report recommendations with which we do not agree, we have explained our 

position, and propose alternatives to the recommendations. We would appreciate the opportunity 

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

Overall Position

EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative provides a means to transform community 

liabilities into assets. Since RE-Powering’s inception, 151 renewable energy installations on 144 

contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites have been established. These sites are in 35 states 

and territories, representing a combined 1,046 MW of capacity and providing numerous benefits 

OIG Response 1: During the exit conference with the agency, we discussed the draft report 

recommendations. For Recommendations 1 and 2, the agency disagreed with the wording of the 

recommendations and proposed alternatives. We do not agree with the wording of the agency’s “Proposed 

Alternative.” However, we agreed that each “Proposed Alternative” and “action” identified by the agency 

meets the intent of the OIG recommendations. The agency agreed with Recommendations 3 and 4. 
15-P-0198 13

to their communities. EPA has collected anecdotal information reporting millions of dollars in 

cost savings for communities from reduced energy costs over several years, as well as, creating 

construction jobs and providing property tax revenue. In addition to the 151 sites already 

developed, EPA is aware of many more sites being developed. 

As a tenet of its implementation, RE-Powering America’s Land solicits and responds to the input 

and perspective of a diverse set of stakeholders and thereby directly and indirectly influences the 

cleanup of contaminated properties and encourages the pursuit of renewable energy. The 

Management Plan and associated products and materials are a result of the stakeholder feedback:

- When stakeholders sought assistance in expanding the screening of potential 

contaminated properties, the Initiative expanded the mapping tool which currently 

identifies over 66,000 sites on over 35 million acres and fostered a collaborative 

partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to provide initial 

screening for these sites; 

- When stakeholders expressed concerns about the potential liability from reusing formerly 

contaminated sites, OSWER partnered with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA) to clarify existing guidance and develop new guidance tailored to the 

kind of tenant relationships often used in renewable energy development; 

- When stakeholders sought advice in pursuing such projects, the Initiative created a 

network of professionals across its headquarters and regional offices (the RE-Powering 

Response Team);

- When stakeholders sought specific technical assistance regarding implementation on 

landfills and siting renewable energy while cleanup is ongoing, the Initiative developed 

two handbooks to integrate the cleanup process with renewable energy development and, 

provide best practices on the installation of solar photovoltaics on landfills; and

- When stakeholders sought assurance and education regarding the opportunity that REPowering might bring to contaminated properties in their communities, the Initiative 

partnered with NREL to assess potential at specific sites, developed communications 

materials to enhance the consideration of this reuse option, tracked and highlighted 

successful installations across the country through its semi-annual tracking matrix, and 

published case studies to explore how particular projects encountered and overcame 

obstacles.

Over the course of six years, with its modest staff4and funding5, the RE-Powering America’s 

Land Initiative has been responsive and brought value to its stakeholders. RE-Powering’s 

influence and visibility continues to grow among an increasing diversity of stakeholders: 

Provisions related to such development were included in the President’s 2013 Memorandum on 

Federal Leadership on Energy Management, the state of New Jersey included contaminated sites 

 

4

Over the course of the six years, there has been from 1-2 full-time EPA employees assigned to Re-Powering. This FTE is supported by a 

regional network of approximately 12 staff persons who work about 10% of their time, along with their other responsibilities. In addition, the 

Initiative is supported by approximately 7 identified staff members in OECA and the other OSWER programs. 

5 Over the course of the six years, the Initiative has expended an average of $240,000 per year on contractor support and funded $2.5 million of 

support to NREL (approximately $1.9 million of which funded feasibility studies for communities).
15-P-0198 14

in its solar legislation in 2012; several utilities include contaminated lands as a criterion in their 

requests for renewable energy sites, states have asked to have their sites in EPA’s mapping tool; 

and the Bureau of Land Management now highlights contaminated properties in their review of 

right-of-way application approval processes. A Google search for “RE-Powering America’s 

Land” returned over 380,000 results, ranging from the newspaper and journal articles to 

academic papers, blogs, presentations, and social media.

Our experience with the OIG and the findings and recommendations contained in this draft 

report have reinforced a need to communicate aspects of the Initiative in better ways and to 

pursue already planned efforts with respect to evaluation. At the same time, the draft report 

identifies weaknesses in ways that stem more from misunderstandings of the effort than from 

demonstrated deficiencies with the Initiative. 

We elaborate below along the following themes: 

 The OIG Report Does Not Fully Capture the Purpose of the RE-Powering America’s Land 

Initiative 

 The OIG’s Limited Outreach to Stakeholders Distorts the Perception and Recognition of the 

RE-Powering Initiative

 OSWER has Management Controls in Place to Track Progress Towards Accomplishing REPowering’s Goals and Objectives 

 OSWER Acknowledges the Need to Complete Its Evaluation Efforts and to Better 

Communicate Impacts

 OSWER has Controls in Place to Ensure Protectiveness 

Discussion of Issues Raised in Draft Report

The OIG Report Does Not Fully Capture the Purpose of the RE-Powering America’s Land 

Initiative

The RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative is a non-regulatory effort to facilitate the cleanup of 

contaminated lands by integrating reuse planning, specifically renewable energy development, 

into federal, state, local, tribal and voluntary cleanups. The Initiative does not site projects. 

Siting and decisions about reuse are pursued by site owners, renewable energy developers and 

other such entities. Nor is the Initiative a grant program that provides funding to assess, cleanup 

or develop sites. The Initiative, consistent with OSWER’s brownfields and other land cleanup 

programs, seeks to incentivize the assessment, cleanup and sustainable reuse of contaminated 

lands, landfills and mine sites by creating awareness of renewable energy as a land reuse 

opportunity, by demonstrating its potential, and assisting in implementation. The OIG Report 

OIG Response 2: We agree that the report reinforces a need to communicate aspects of the initiative in 

better ways, but do not agree that the weaknesses stem from misunderstandings. The report identifies that the 

initiative needs to pursue efforts to determine the benefits and value of the initiative. We acknowledge the 

agency’s efforts to be responsive to stakeholders and the outputs the agency describes, including stakeholder 

interest and anecdotal information on projected cost savings associated with the initiative.
15-P-0198 15

focuses on the communication aspects of the Initiative (“the promotion, education and outreach 

of siting renewable energy on contaminated lands”) and understates the connections the Initiative 

has to Agency remediation and reuse programs. 

The OIG’s Limited Outreach to Stakeholders Distorts the Perception and Recognition of the 

RE-Powering Initiative

The OIG reports “mixed feedback” from stakeholders about their familiarity and usage of the 

Initiative’s website and tools based on interviews with seven external customers. The OIG 

reports that three of the seven were familiar with Initiative tools and provided positive feedback, 

but the other four were unaware of or did not use the tools. The small sample of anonymous 

stakeholders and the characterization of such feedback as “mixed” distorts what the Office has 

experienced as very positive and encouraging feedback from its stakeholders. The sentence 

within the Conclusions section on page nine would be accurate if written as “Further, four of 

seven external parties surveyed that are involved in siting renewable energy on contaminated 

lands ...” OSWER references the following examples: 

 Recognition by Harvard University as a top 25 Innovation in American Government 

(5/2013);

 Testimonials from site developers and communities:

o “EPA Region 3’s support letter and general advocacy for the project were 

instrumental in providing comfort to all financing parties involved” 

(Owner/Developer of Dupont Solar Farm as reported in RE-Powering Newsletter 

3/2014)

o “Then, the idea of exploring the use of the landfill emerged when city officials 

were at a federal environmental Protection Agency brownfields conference earlier 

this year.” (Article describing Sandford, ME solar project efforts (Journal Tribune 

7/2013))

o “The Avalon Solar project was born out of an Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) program established with the objective of siting renewable energy projects 

on disturbed lands, including mine sites.” (Pima Mine Road Fact Sheet, Avalon 

Solar 2014)

o “Early on, we had a conference call with the EPA to understand their 

process...The fact that EPA was enthusiastic and confident the project could be 

built was a huge X factor.” (Maywood Solar Farm developer relating interaction 

with EPA Regional office in Solar Industry Magazine, May 1, 2014).

o “We have discussed the RE-Powering Initiative with EPA since its proposal, and 

are very supportive of the pragmatic way EPA has proceeded with this program. 

OIG Response 3: One of the objectives of the evaluation included the EPA’s promotion efforts of siting

renewable energy, and, as such, our report focuses more on promotion, education and outreach efforts. We do, 

however, mention other aspects of the initiative throughout our report, including, among other things, initiative 

efforts as stated on the initiative’s website, how the initiative relies on partnerships to complete and report on 

renewable energy on contaminated lands, and that the initiative works with other agency remediation and reuse 

programs.
15-P-0198 16

The Agency’s approach, relying on partnerships and easily accessible development 

tools, successfully builds support for these projects while providing the flexibility 

needed because the projects are highly dependent on energy markets, state 

incentive programs, community acceptance and the logistics of providing power to 

the grid, an individual customer or a fuel pipeline.” (Excerpt from Waste 

Management Inc.’s comments on the draft Action Plan 2.0 (May 2014))

OSWER has Management Controls in Place to Track Progress Towards Accomplishing REPowering’s Goals and Objectives. 

The OIG Draft Report faults the Initiative for not having “implemented a control to 

systematically track how the Initiative is accomplishing its goals, objectives and actions as 

outlined in its Management Plan, or the outcomes generated by accomplishing its goals.” The 

OIG notes in the draft report that control activities include policies, procedures, and mechanisms 

to help ensure that Agency objectives are met, and OMB Circular A-123 states there is a “range 

of tools at the disposal of agency managers to achieve desired program results.”6 OMB Circular 

A-123 also discusses how programs should put in place “systematic and proactive measures to 

develop and implement appropriate, cost-effective internal control for results-oriented 

management.” 

OSWER does have controls in place to track how the Initiative is accomplishing its goals, 

objectives, and actions. Management has put in place processes and procedures to check 

progress against established milestones including weekly updates, bi-weekly or monthly 

meetings, regular review and reporting of financials associated with the Initiative, and employee 

accountability through performance standards. We believe that such management review and 

the procedures and processes in place provide systematic and proactive measures to achieve the 

objectives of effective operations and are consistent with OMB Circular A-123. 

 

6 OMB Circular A-123 – Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control 

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a123_rev/) 

OIG Response 4: As discussed in the report, we interviewed seven external stakeholders. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, to obtain perspectives from 10 or more persons, an Office of Management and 

Budget-approved information collection request is required. The views of stakeholders are not material to this 

review and, therefore, the OIG did not invest in preparing an information collection request. We believe the 

seven stakeholders we interviewed provided valid feedback. 

OIG Response 5: We have revised our report to include details on examples of processes and procedures 

the agency has identified that were put in place to check progress against established milestones. Although the 

agency has provided examples of processes and procedures it uses to check progress, the agency has not 

addressed how these various processes and procedures systematically track how the initiative is accomplishing 

its goals and objectives as outlined in its Management Plan, or the outcomes generated by accomplishing its 

goals.
15-P-0198 17

As the OIG has recognized in the draft report, we were able to articulate the status of the 

Initiative’s efforts, the accounting of funds spent and able to provide information on the actions 

completed from the 2010 Management Plan. We believe that funds were both responsibly and 

efficaciously spent to develop outputs for the Initiative and are concerned that the report suggests 

otherwise. With less than 3 FTE and $4 million dollars over the 6 years of the Initiative, the 

effort has produced a host of outputs and engaged and influenced a wide variety of stakeholders 

through presentations, conferences, webinars, stakeholder meetings and the development of the 

two Management / Action Plans. 

OSWER Acknowledges the Need to Complete Its Evaluation Efforts and to Better 

Communicate Impacts

From the start of our discussions with the OIG, Initiative staff acknowledged its continued 

interest but delay in pursuing more detailed measures and an evaluation of the Initiative. 

Evaluation has always been considered an important part of the Initiative and has been included 

in both the Initiative’s Management and Action Plans. To date, stakeholder interaction has 

helped guide and provide feedback to the Initiative. The Initiative is following through with a 

more formal approach, having just recently published the first stage of these evaluation efforts –

an evaluation scoping assessment. This assessment articulates a new logic model for the 

Initiative, poses questions of interest and explores methods and data that would be used to 

answer such questions. The Initiative plans to pursue in the coming year various analyses 

suggested by the scoping study.

Although more work is needed, we believe that the Initiative has developed and shared 

information associated with the impacts of siting renewable energy on contaminated lands, 

landfills and mine sites. The program maintains a tracking matrix of completed installations to 

track outcomes, demonstrating the viability of such redevelopment and providing stakeholders 

information on as many projects as possible. Such information is gathered from publicly 

available sources. While we seek to be as comprehensive as possible, the tracking matrix does 

not include every site with renewable energy on contaminated lands, since this is a voluntary 

program and people are not required to report the information to us. The omission of a few 

sites, though, does not detract from the matrix’s value. The Initiative believes that the tracking 

matrix reflects most as well as the variety of RE-Powering projects pursued and therefore, 

requests that the report change “not representative” on page 5 to “not comprehensive.”

OIG Response 6: Our report does not state that the agency is not “responsibly and efficaciously” spending 

funds to develop outputs for the initiative. Rather, our report identifies that work remains to be completed to 

communicate benefits and determine the outcomes of the program. 

OIG Response 7: Our report acknowledges that the agency has developed and shared information 

associated with the impacts of siting renewable energy, such as through the tracking matrix, and agree that 

more work is needed. Changes to the report were made as appropriate.
15-P-0198 18

We also believe that the matrix in conjunction with the newsletter and other RE-Powering 

communications materials provide stakeholders information on the impacts of these programs 

and some insight on EPA’s involvement and indicate millions of dollars in cost savings, revenue 

from property taxes, and creation of construction jobs. For example, as previously shared with 

the OIG, those sites where EPA oversaw the cleanup (i.e., Superfund sites, RCRA Corrective 

Action sites) benefitted from EPA involvement (32 sites as submitted to the OIG last August). 

Recent efforts have collected the reporting of economic information. We agree with the OIG 

(page 5) that these materials do not represent the complete efforts of the Initiative, and OSWER 

recognizes there is an opportunity to more expansively communicate impacts associated with 

RE-Powering projects.

OSWER Has Controls in Place to Ensure Protectiveness

As far as protectiveness is concerned, there is no issue regarding protectiveness. Since it is not 

found to be lacking, there is and should be limited commentary that the Initiative itself would 

provide on protectiveness. OSWER, more broadly, and the waste management programs it 

oversees work extensively on these protectiveness issues and the Initiative is willing to work 

with such programs to communicate and reference the ways the Agency and its state and tribal 

partners ensure protectiveness on contaminated properties. Consistent with the OIG 

recommendation, we will supplement the Initiative’s website accordingly.

OIG Response 8: In response to our request for a list of completed renewable energy projects on 

contaminated or potentially contaminated sites nationwide where EPA has had or will have a direct role, the 

agency provided us with a list of 32 sites. The list of 32 sites provided were, according to initiative staff, sites

where EPA oversaw the cleanup (i.e., Superfund sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective 

Action sites) and the renewable energy installations benefitted from EPA involvement. The information 

provided to us did not include details on how the renewable energy installations on these sites benefitted from 

EPA involvement. Therefore, we could not report on how renewable energy installations at these sites 

benefitted from EPA involvement. 
15-P-0198 19

Response to Report Recommendations
15-P-0198 20

Appendix B

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

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

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