UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

September 26, 2002

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Federal Facility Cleanups: Improvement Needed

In EPA Oversight of Cleanup Actions at the

Savannah River Nuclear Facility

Report No. 2002-P00014

FROM: Carolyn Copper

Director of Program Evaluation 

Hazardous Waste Issues

Office of Program Evaluation

TO: Jimmy Palmer 

Regional Administrator

Region 4

Attached is a copy of the final report on Region 4 oversight of Department of Energy cleanups at

the Savannah River Site nuclear facility. 

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you are requested to provide a written response to the

recommendations presented in the final report by December 27, 2002. The response should

address all recommendations and include a timetable for actions not completed by the response

date. Reference to specific milestones for incomplete actions will assist in deciding whether to

close this report in our assignment tracking system.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0829

or John Price, Project Manager, at (404) 562-9837.

Attachment

Stainless steel canisters for storing high level nuclear waste after being

combined with glass at Savannah River’s vetrification plant.

Office of Inspector General

Evaluation Report

Federal Facility Cleanups

Improvement Needed In 

EPA Oversight of Cleanup Actions

at the Savannah River Nuclear Facility

Report No. No. 2002-P-00014

September 26, 2002
Region Covered: Region 4

Regional Program Waste Management Division,

 Office Involved: Federal Facilities Branch

EPA Headquarters Program Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

 Office Involved:

Report Contributors: Angela Bennett

Carolyn Copper

John Price

Johnny Ross

Abbreviations

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

DOD: Department of Defense

DOE: Department of Energy

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FFA: Federal Facility Agreement

FFRRO: Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office

FTE: Full-Time Equivalent

NCP: National Contingency Plan

NPL: National Priorities List

OIG: Office of Inspector General

ORWBG: Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground

OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

PREScore: Preliminary Ranking Evaluation Score

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD: Record of Decision

SARA: Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act

SRS: Savannah River Site

(Source of photo on cover: SRS Environmental Report for 2000, Summary)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SOUTHERN AUDIT AND EVALUATION RESOURCE CENTER

61 FORSYTH STREET, ROOM 16T70

ATLANTA, GA 30303

(404) 562-9830

(404) 562-9828 Fax

 

September 26, 2002

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Federal Facility Cleanups: Improvement Needed

In EPA Oversight of Cleanup Actions at the

Savannah River Nuclear Facility

Report No. 2002-P-00014

FROM: John A. Price 

Project Manager

TO: Jimmy Palmer

Regional Administrator

Region 4

Attached is our final report on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) oversight of

Department of Energy (DOE) cleanup actions at the Savannah River Site (SRS) nuclear facility. 

The objectives of our evaluation were to determine whether (1) the SRS Federal Facility

Agreement (FFA) cleanup requirements and related cleanup actions were consistent with

CERCLA and planned use for SRS sites, (2) EPA Region 4’s oversight of cleanup activities for

SRS was effective in achieving compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and FFA requirements; and (3) DOE’s compliance

with CERCLA and FFA requirements was adversely affected by funding limitations.

The report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has

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

the OIG and the findings contained in this report do 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.
ACTION REQUIRED

On August 8, 2002, we issued a draft report to you and received your response on September 11,

2002. Your response indicated that you generally concurred with the report’s findings and

recommendations. Your response included specific, as well as broad, potential actions that may

be taken in response to the recommendations. Specific corrective actions which address all of the

recommendations and milestones for completion of planned actions will be needed to close the

final report.

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you, as the primary action official, are required to provide

this office with a written response within 90 days of the final report date. The response should

address all recommendations. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the response

date, please describe the actions that are on-going and provide a timetable for completion. 

Reference to specific milestones for these actions will assist in deciding whether to close this

report in our assignment tracking system.

We have no objection to the release of this report to the public. Should you or your staff have

any questions, please have them contact me or Angela Bennett at (404) 562-9830.

Attachment
Report No. 2002-P-00014

i

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA, or Superfund) gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

authority and oversight responsibility for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites

owned and operated by other federal agencies. Department of Energy (DOE)

facilities represent some of the most contaminated federal facilities. As a result of

preliminary research at the Hanford facility in Washington State, the OIG decided

to review remedial actions and related EPA oversight at other selected DOE

facilities. The Savannah River Site (SRS), a Superfund site near Aiken, South

Carolina, was selected for review primarily because the facility had the second

highest estimated long-term CERCLA cleanup costs of all DOE facilities

($2 billion to $4.4 billion). 

Objectives

The objectives for this evaluation were to determine whether:

• SRS Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) cleanup requirements and related

cleanup actions were consistent with CERCLA and planned use for SRS sites;

• EPA Region 4’s oversight of cleanup activities for SRS was effective in

achieving compliance with CERCLA and FFA requirements; and

• DOE’s compliance with CERCLA and FFA requirements was adversely

affected by funding limitations.

Results in Brief

FFA cleanup requirements were consistent with CERCLA and the National

Contingency Plan, and did not provide any exceptions to the requirements. 

Further, proposed remedies under the FFA generally complied with applicable

requirements. We noted that, to increase efficiency and effectiveness, DOE and

EPA Region 4 had developed processing protocols for FFA primary documents

and established a core team to scope remedial investigations and develop cleanup

alternatives and strategies.

However, we found that Region 4 oversight did not ensure that DOE prioritized

SRS cleanups based on potential risks to human health and the environment. Over

41 percent of the sites/operable units on SRS’s 2002 list of operable units (sites)
Report No. 2002-P-00014

ii

that require further cleanup had not been scored for human health and

environmental risk. Also, high risk sites had not been prioritized for cleanup while

many low scoring sites received substantial attention. While guidance indicates

that risk should be the primary factor in establishing priorities, SRS instead placed

an emphasis on internal goals. Further, our review of Region 4 oversight disclosed

that:

• Due to Region 4 personnel shortages, remedial actions at SRS sites have been

delayed because of late Region 4 responses to DOE primary cleanup decision

documents. Regional comments were overdue by as much as a year, and late

EPA responses delayed cleanups by 8 months or more. For 2002, DOE

estimated that late Region 4 responses and related cleanup delays will cost

DOE approximately $2.7 million.

• Region 4 did not properly review and comment on the last official DOE fiveyear review of SRS remedial actions, issued in 1997, to ensure that the review

properly documented the continued protectiveness and compliance of the

remedial actions. Further, the 2002 review report omitted certain remedial

actions from the five-year review process.

• The SRS FFA does not: (1) acknowledge that DOE, rather than EPA,

performs five-year reviews; and (2) require EPA review and approval of DOE

five-year review reports. Further, the FFA does not provide EPA with the

authority to dispute or otherwise resolve inadequate site evaluations.

We also found that DOE’s remedial cleanup funding level for the SRS may not be

sufficient to maintain the current level of effort and provide expeditious cleanups. 

Increasing costs for long-term response actions will continue to erode funding.

Recommendations

We made various recommendations to the Region 4 Administrator to address the

issues noted, including establishing improved oversight procedures and ensuring

that there is sufficient Region 4 staff. Further, we made recommendations to

improve the five-year review and site evaluation processes, and to assist Region 4

in determining whether DOE funding levels are adequate.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 4 generally concurred with the OIG’s findings and recommendations and

included planned or possible actions that the Region may take in response to the

recommendations. Some of the proposed actions were broader in scope than the

report’s recommendations. To resolve and close this report, the Region needs to

provide specific actions planned or taken for each recommendation in the final

report, along with milestones for completion of planned actions.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................. i

Chapters

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

2 FFA Requirements Consistent With CERCLA ................. 5

3 Relative Risk to Human Health and Environment

Not a Primary Factor in Prioritizing Cleanup Actions ........... 9

4 Insufficient Region 4 Oversight Causing Delays and Potential

Impacts to Human Health and the Environment ................ 19

5 Improved Procedures and FFA Modifications Needed for Effective

Oversight of Five-Year Reviews and Site Evaluations ........... 25

6 DOE Level of Funding May Not Be Sufficient .................. 31

Appendices

1 Details on Scope and Methodology .......................... 35

2 Prior Reports on Federal Facility Cleanups ................... 37

3 Records of Decision Issued Under SRS FFA .................. 39

4 Agency Response ........................................ 41

5 Distribution ............................................. 47
Report No. 2002-P-00014

iv

Tables

3-1: Range of PREScore Values for Sites with 

Remedial Actions ............................ 11

3-2: Range of PREScore Values for 26 Low Risk Sites ....... 12

3-3: Cleanup Activity and Status for Highest Risk 

Operable Units ................................... 13

3-4: H and F Areas and Burial Grounds - Percent of Monitoring

Wells Above EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level ....... 13

4-1: Late Region 4 Responses to SRS 

Primary Documents ............................... 20
Report No. 2002-P-00014

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this evaluation based on concerns

related to certain remedial actions at the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford

facility, near Richland, Washington, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

oversight. As a result of preliminary research at Hanford, OIG decided to review

remedial actions and related EPA oversight at other selected DOE facilities. The

Savannah River Site (SRS), a Superfund site near Aiken, South Carolina, was

selected for review primarily because the facility had the second highest estimated

long-term cleanup costs of all DOE facilities.

The specific objectives of our evaluation were to determine whether:

• The Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) cleanup requirements and related

cleanup actions were consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and planned use for

SRS sites.

• Region 4’s oversight of cleanup activities for SRS was effective in achieving

compliance with CERCLA and FFA requirements.

• DOE’s compliance with CERCLA and FFA requirements was adversely

affected by funding limitations.

Background

DOE Responsibility

Over the past five decades, DOE and its predecessors were responsible for the

research, development, testing, and production of nuclear weapons and a variety of

nuclear-related research projects. These activities created significant amounts of

hazardous chemical and radioactive wastes and contamination at DOE sites.

In 1980, CERCLA, also referred to as “Superfund,” provided EPA with

enforcement authority for cleaning up abandoned/inactive contaminated waste

sites. Section 120 of CERCLA provided EPA with specific regulatory

enforcement and oversight authority for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites

owned by other federal agencies, such as DOE. The National Contingency

Plan (NCP) in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300 establishes the
Report No. 2002-P-00014

2

Figure 1: Weapons-grade

plutonium stored at SRS.

(Source: DOE SRS web site.)

requirements for all CERCLA cleanup actions, to include federal facility cleanups.

The DOE Environmental Management Program is currently conducting cleanup

activities at 53 of its sites to bring them into compliance with federal and State

environmental laws and regulations. In 1998, total life cycle cleanup costs for

these sites were estimated by DOE at $147 billion. More recently, DOE has

estimated total life cycle cleanup costs at $220 billion, which DOE acknowledges

could easily increase to more than $300 billion. Only about one-third of the

Environmental Management Program budget is currently going toward actual

cleanup and risk reduction. The remainder is spent on maintenance, fixed costs,

and other activities required to support safety and security. These life cycle costs

include much more than the cleanup of hazardous waste under Superfund. At the

SRS, while DOE estimated the total life cycle cleanup costs to be $29.7 billion,

estimated costs for CERCLA-regulated cleanups ranged from $2 billion to 4.4

billion of that amount.

Savannah River Site

The SRS has been in operation for about 52 years and encompasses about

310 square miles. The facility is located on the South Carolina and Georgia

border, near Augusta, Georgia. The Savannah River, which forms the boundary

between Georgia and South Carolina, runs about 35 miles along the southwestern

boundary of the site. This river and underlying groundwater is a drinking water

source for the SRS and other communities in Georgia and South Carolina.

The SRS was established in 1950 to produce special radioactive isotopes for

nuclear weapons (such as plutonium-239 and tritium). In addition, SRS produced

other special isotopes to support research in nuclear medicine, space

exploration, and commercial applications (such as californium-252,

plutonium-238, and americium-241). The SRS includes nuclear

reactors, a fuel and target fabrication plant, two chemical separations

plants, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, the Savannah River

Laboratory, and support operations. SRS generates a variety of

radioactive, non-radioactive, and mixed (radioactive and hazardous)

wastes. SRS waste management practices (past and present) include

the use of seepage basins for liquids, pits and piles for solids, tanks

for high-level radioactive mixed wastes, and landfills for low-level

radioactive wastes. Federal and contractor staff at SRS totaled more

than 13,000 employees, as of December 2001. A map of the SRS

showing principal areas of contamination is shown on next page.
1

 For purposes of this report, the terms “site” and “operable unit” are used interchangeably and refer to

specific areas of contamination at SRS that have been listed for cleanup actions.

Report No. 2002-P-00014

3

Figure 2: SRS Map showing major areas of contamination. (Source: SRS Environmental Report for 2000, Summary)

On November 21, 1989, EPA placed the SRS on the Superfund National Priorities

List (NPL). CERCLA requires that each federal agency with a facility on the NPL

enter into an interagency agreement with EPA for the expeditious completion of all

necessary remedial action at the facility. The SRS FFA between EPA, DOE and

the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (the State)

became effective on August 16, 1993, although CERCLA cleanup activities under

the FFA had already been initiated by DOE on some sites in 1992. The SRS FFA

actually covers numerous operable units (generally separate sites)1, of which 84

have been designated by EPA as CERCLA operable units. The FFA generally
Report No. 2002-P-00014

4

provides the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements for remedial cleanups;

the roles and responsibilities of each party to the agreement; the scope of work to

be accomplished; and the milestones to be met. The FFA also represents a

compliance agreement between EPA and the DOE with enforceable milestones. 

Penalties can be assessed against DOE for noncompliance with FFA requirements

and enforceable milestones.

EPA Oversight

The Federal Facilities Branch within EPA Region 4’s Waste Management Division

is principally responsible for oversight and implementation of the SRS FFA. The

Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office within EPA’s Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is responsible for EPA’s federal

facility oversight policies and provides support to regional oversight programs.

Scope and Methodology

This evaluation was performed in accordance with the Government Auditing

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. We assessed

management controls and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

Control weaknesses and recommended corrective actions are identified in this

report. We did not identify any instances of noncompliance with statutory or

regulatory requirements. 

The evaluation fieldwork was primarily performed at Region 4 in Atlanta, Georgia;

DOE SRS near Aiken, South Carolina; and the South Carolina Department of

Health and Environmental Control in Columbia, South Carolina. The evaluation

included a review of the FFA and related CERCLA remedial activities from June

1992 through December 2001. Although the FFA was not effective until August

1993, SRS initiated three remedial actions in June 1992 under the proposed FFA.

See Appendix 1 for further details concerning the audit scope and methodology.

Prior Coverage

This is the OIG’s first evaluation of Region 4’s oversight of DOE cleanup actions

at the SRS. Similar evaluations have been conducted at DOE’s facilities in

Richland, Washington, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The EPA OIG, the DOE OIG

and program management, and the General Accounting Office have performed

numerous reviews directly or indirectly related to federal facility hazardous waste

cleanups. See Appendix 2 for a list of reports directly or indirectly related to this

evaluation.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

5

Chapter 2

FFA Requirements Consistent With CERCLA

FFA cleanup requirements were consistent with CERCLA and 40 CFR Part 300

(the NCP). The SRS FFA did not provide any exceptions to CERCLA and NCP

requirements. In addition, analyses of proposed remedies by Region 4 and the

State agency indicated that remedies approved under the FFA generally complied

with the NCP and applicable federal and State requirements or needed waivers

were obtained. To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of remedial actions and

EPA oversight, DOE SRS and Region 4 developed processing protocols for FFA

primary documents and established a core team to scope remedial investigations

and develop cleanup alternatives and strategies.

CERCLA and NCP Established Requirements

CERCLA established EPA’s hazardous substance release reporting and cleanup

program, and the NCP sets forth the process and regulations for conducting

Superfund cleanup actions. The NCP provides that a remedy shall be selected

based on whether it provides:

• Overall protection of human health and the environment.

• Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.

• Long-term effectiveness and permanence.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment.

• Implementability (including technical feasibility).

• Cost effectiveness.

SRS Remedial Actions Generally Addressed Containment or Control

Of the 41 remedial actions approved since the FFA became effective in 1993,

32 represented source control and containment-type remedies. The remaining nine

remedies involved excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated media or

treatment of groundwater for organic compounds and metals. These remedies

generally represented proven cleanup techniques used by EPA and responsible

parties on other Superfund sites. Basins generally required dewatering with burial

of contaminated sediments and surrounding soil in the basins with a low

permeability soil or clay cover. Buried wastes were sometimes grouted or

stabilized to further reduce contaminant mobility and add permanence to the

remedy. Treatments included soil vapor extraction, air stripping, and burial of

hazardous wastes on-site. The cleanup goals/levels for remedial actions were

consistent with requirements and the planned use of the land involved. The future
Report No. 2002-P-00014

6

Figure 3: In-situ stabilization (grouting) of K

Reactor Seepage Basin (Source: SRS 2001

Annual Performance Report)

Figure 4: SRS dynamic underground stripping plant for

removing solvents from groundwater. (Source: SRS 2001

Annual Performance Report.)

use for most of the CERCLA operable units has been

restricted to industrial use or designated to remain in

federal control for perpetuity. Since many remedial

actions required burial of hazardous wastes on-site, the

remedies included institutional controls to preclude human

and ecological exposure to the contaminants.

SRS currently has 84 CERCLA operable units under the

FFA. Of the 41 remedial actions issued since FFA’s

inception to implement remedies, 13 were interim and 28

were final. Refer to Appendix 3 for list of remedial

actions.

Region 4 and SRS Took Actions to Ensure Compliance

To ensure compliance and reduce revisions to primary decision documents (such

as Records of Decision [ROD] and Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies),

Region 4 and the SRS developed protocols for each document. The protocols

(“Environmental Restoration Documents Handbook”) were issued in 1999. These

protocols helped assure that documents issued by SRS contained all of the

information needed to support the cleanup decisions and remedy development and

selection. Another objective was to reduce the number of revisions required

before the documents were acceptable to all parties for issuance/publication. 

According to the SRS lead Remedial Project Manager and DOE officials, the

protocols substantially reduced revisions to primary documents and provided for

more timely issuance of cleanup decisions. 

In addition, Region 4 and SRS established a core team process for critical

decisions on scoping remedial investigations and developing remedial alternatives. 

The core team consists of representatives from

Region 4, the State, and SRS. Because the team

is extensively involved in the scoping of remedial

activities and development of cleanup decisions,

draft primary documents generally reflect

decisions already agreed upon by the three

parties to the FFA. The core team concept may

substantially reduce the cost of remedial actions

in some cases. For example, the team

accelerated completion of the Remedial

Investigation/ Feasibility Study for one operable

unit by 2 years and developed a cleanup proposal

for consolidating excavated contaminated soil

and related wastes within the unit. This is

expected to save $5 million over other cleanup

alternatives.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

7

Processes and procedures developed by Region 4 and the SRS to ensure the

consistency and cost effectiveness of remedial cleanup operations at SRS should be

evaluated for possible use in performing oversight at other federal facilities.

Conclusion

The FFA requirements for SRS are consistent with CERCLA. In addition, based

on Region 4 documentation and comments by Region 4, DOE, and the State, the

remedies for contaminated media at SRS were selected based on realistic

expectations that such remedies would meet the requirements of CERCLA and the

NCP for the specific media addressed in the remedy. Whether the remedies will

ultimately meet remedial goals and objectives and, therefore, provide the

protectiveness to human health and the environment as set forth in the applicable

RODs can only be determined over the long term. Thus far, five-year reviews of

SRS remedial actions have indicated that completed actions continue to meet

remedial goals and provide adequate protection to human health and the

environment. 

Recommendation

We recommend that the Region 4 Administrator:

 2-1. Evaluate potential benefits of using the SRS primary document protocols

and core team process for oversight of cleanups at other federal facilities.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 4 agreed with the recommendation and indicated that the core team

approach had been implemented for Region 4's oversight of the Department of

Defense’s Base Realignments and Closures and active military bases and facilities. 

The Region also signed an agreement in June 2002 with DOE and the Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation that includes, in part,

implementation of core team processes at DOE’s Oak Ridge Reservation.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

8
2

 DOE Report, A Review of the Environmental Management Program (a.k.a. Top to Bottom Review),

issued February 4, 2002. 

3

 General Accounting Office report, Waste Cleanup, Status and Implications of DOE’s Compliance

Agreements, GAO-02-567, issued May 2002.

Report No. 2002-P-00014

9

Chapter 3

Relative Risk to Human Health and Environment

Not a Primary Factor in Prioritizing Cleanup Actions

Although the FFA requires that DOE prioritize cleanups based on potential risks to

human health and the environment, Region 4 did not ensure that SRS did so. In

fact, over 41 percent (51 of 124) of the sites on SRS’s 2002 list of operable units

that require further cleanup had not been scored as to human health and

environmental risks. Also, high risk operable units had not been sufficiently

prioritized for cleanup while many low scoring sites received attention and

resources. Further, all stakeholders were not sufficiently involved in the

methodology DOE used to prioritize cleanups and how this methodology related

to the risk-based approach in the FFA. The FFA, interagency policy, and DOE

management note that reduction of relative risk to human health and environment

should be the primary factor in establishing cleanup priorities. However, SRS

placed an emphasis on internal program goals rather than consistently addressing

high risk sites. DOE’s recent review of its Environmental Management Program 

acknowledged that the cleanup program, as a whole, lacked a comprehensive,

coherent, technically supported process for prioritizing and reducing risk to

workers, the public, and the environment2. In addition, a recent General

Accounting Office report indicated that SRS’s process for allocating resources to

cleanups did not adequately allow for the consideration of serious risks to human

health and the environment3.

Policies and Agreements Emphasize Risk 

as Basis for Cleanup Priority

EPA’s policy on establishing cleanup priorities at federal facilities is in Chapter 5,

Funding and Priority Setting, Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental

Restoration Dialogue Committee: Consensus Principles and Recommendations

for Improving Federal Facility Cleanup, issued April 1996. This policy provides

that while factors other than risk warrant consideration in setting cleanup

priorities, risk to human health and the environment is an all important factor that

should be a primary consideration in setting environmental cleanup priorities at

federal facilities. The policy further emphasizes that the priority setting should
Report No. 2002-P-00014

10

involve all stakeholders – including the general public and local communities – and

the process used to establish priorities should be transparent to all interested

parties.

The SRS FFA provides requirements for scoping work priorities in Section XIX,

and Appendix F (Prioritization of Environmental Restoration Tasks). These

procedures are to be used to prioritize sites. The DOE each year is to submit a

listing of the sites, according to priority, to EPA and the South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control, for review and comment.

EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (30 CFR Part 300, Appendix A) is the principal

mechanism for ranking potential adverse effects on the environment and relative

potential human health risks attributable to CERCLA sites. The comprehensive

Preliminary Ranking Evaluation Score (“PREScore”) computer program, based on

the Hazard Ranking System criteria, provides a ranking system for work activities

at each site. The SRS FFA, Section XIX, Appendix F, indicates the PREScore

program is to be used to rank SRS work activities. 

Cleanup Priority Based On DOE Internal Goals

Based on our review of SRS cleanup actions, work plans, and related

documentation, it was not clear that relative risk was the primary factor in

prioritizing sites for remediation. Further, there was no clear, consistent SRS

methodology for prioritizing remedial cleanups.

DOE managers we spoke to acknowledged that PREScore was not the primary

factor in prioritizing site cleanups in annual and future work plans. Rather,

officials indicated internal goals included completed cleanups per year which

required DOE to focus resources on lower risk sites to meet these goals. DOE

managers indicated that annual and future work plans were negotiated between

DOE, EPA, and the State. However, DOE staff said they decide what projects

and related sites are listed in individual work plans, and the negotiations with EPA

and the State normally only involve the number of each type of cleanup action in

the plans and the milestone dates. 

We found that from fiscal 1996 to 2002, SRS discontinued scoring and ranking

CERCLA operable units listed in the FAA’s Appendix C. The fiscal 1996

Appendix contained 86 operable units with 79 units sorted on a PREScore value. 

While the fiscal 2002 Appendix listed 124 operable units, 73 (59 percent) had a

PREScore value and 51 (41 percent) did not. Although this list did not comply

with FFA requirements, Region 4 approved the fiscal 2002 Appendix C on January

10, 2002. The OIG requested an explanation from DOE as to why all operable

units had not been evaluated using PREScore, but DOE did not provide an

explanation.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

11

Low Risk Sites Received Attention and Resources

Use of PREScore to prioritize cleanups should have focused DOE’s effort and

resources on sites with the highest potential risks. EPA defines NPL sites or high

risk sites as sites with a PREScore that exceeds 28.5. However, we found that

many low risk sites (sites with a score of less 28.5 ) received attention and

resources. The 41 remedial actions approved since FFA inception were for sites

with scores as shown in Table 3-1 below. 

Table 3-1: Range of PREScore Values for Sites

With Remedial Actions

PREScore Value

No. of 

Remedial Actions

No Score 5

Less than 10 17

Between 10 and 20 5

Between 20 and 28.5 6

In excess of 28.5 8

 Total 41

Further, over 51.5 percent of estimated remedy construction costs have been for

sites with scores less than 28.5. Of the $58.2 million in estimated construction

costs (where available) reflected in remedial action decisions, $28.3 million was

estimated as remedy construction costs for NPL caliber sites (scores in excess of

28.5) versus over $30 million for the remaining, less contaminated sites.

Of the 41 remedial actions mentioned above, 20 (49 percent) indicated that

remedial investigations found no significant contamination existed and, therefore,

no substantial cleanup actions were required. Of these 20 remedial actions, nearly

all (15) required no further action while the remaining 5 only required institutional

controls, natural attenuation, and/or groundwater monitoring. These 20 remedial

actions involved 26 sites that were generally scored as low risk by PREScore ( a

score less than 28.5). As stated above, a site with a PREScore value in excess of

28.5 represents an NPL-caliber site and thus high risk. However, of the 26 sites,

only 1 exceeded 28.5, as shown in Table 3-2 below:
4

 EPA Public Health Statement, Essential Information about Certain Hazardous Substances in Savannah

River Fish, dated May 1997. Information in this publication was compiled from documents from the National

Institutes of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Report No. 2002-P-00014

12

Table 3-2: Range of PREScore Values

for 26 Low Risk Sites

PREScore Value

No. of 

SRS Sites

Zero (0) 3

Less than 10 9

Between 10 and 21 10

No score available 3

In excess of 28.5 1

 Total 26

Highly Contaminated Sites Continued to Release Hazardous

Substances

While low risk sites were addressed, highly contaminated sites continued to release

hazardous substances into SRS groundwater and watersheds. The SRS F and H

areas and nearby burial grounds included some of the most contaminated SRS

operable units, per PREScore. These areas are adjacent to each other near the

center of the SRS, and contain three of the highest risk CERCLA operable units. 

However, only one of these three units (Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground -

ORWBG) had received a remedial action as of December 2001, and this action

was only an interim soil cover over part of the unit. At these three sites, the soil

and groundwater are highly contaminated with radionuclides (especially tritium

and cesium), nitrates, and metals. Tritium and cesium are considered carcinogens,

mutagens, and teratogens, and have been linked to developmental and reproductive

problems and genetic abnormalities4. Table 3-3 below shows the activity and

status of these operable units as of December 2001:
5

 We requested monitoring well data for the ORWBG and the H-Area operable units for the period 1995-

2001. However, the data DOE provided did not comply with our request and could not be used to determine

overall contamination trends in these units. 

Report No. 2002-P-00014

13

Table 3-3: Cleanup Activity and Status for Highest Risk Operable Units

Operable Unit

 

Remedial

Investigation

Field Start

Remedial

Investigation

Complete

Feasibility

Study

Complete RODs

Remedial

Actions

Initiated/

Completed

ORWBG 1995

Workplan

Approved 2001,

In-process

In-process

03/01/96

09/14/01

Interim/Partial

Soil Cover

H-Area

Retention Basin

06/30/94 March 2001 In-process None None

H-Area Tank

Farm 

Groundwater

08/08/93

Workplan

Approved 2001,

In-process

NA None None

According to a 1994 DOE report, SRS had experienced the highest tritium

emissions of any DOE facility. Streams and related watersheds down gradient of

the H-Area and burial ground sites, shown in chart above, have been adversely

impacted by contaminant migration from these sites, especially tritium. However,

remedial actions through 2000 showed little impact on decreasing tritium.

Ground and surface water monitoring data for the ORWBG and H-Area indicated

that migration of contaminants from these units had increased or stabilized rather

than decreased. The number of monitoring wells with contaminants in excess of

EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCL) increased between 1998 and 2000. 

The percentage of monitoring well results above EPA MCLs for the H and F

Areas and burial grounds are shown in Table 3-4 below5:

Table 3-4: H and F Areas and Burial Grounds -

Percent of Monitoring Wells Above EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level

Contaminant

of Concern

% Monitoring Wells Above Maximum Contaminant Level

1998 1999 2000

Metals 17% 14% 21%

Tritium 51% 54% 63%

Other Radionuclides 40% 36% 46%

Sulfates/Nitrates 20% 22% 35%

Not only did the number of wells exceeding MCLs increase, but the amount of
Report No. 2002-P-00014

14

Figure 5: SRS monitoring well. 

(Source: SRS Environmental

Report for 2000, Summary)

contamination within the wells increased. For example, in 1996, the

average tritium concentration in ORWBG wells was about 11 million

picocuries per liter (pCi/L) with the highest annual detected

concentration being 160 million pCi/L. These concentrations were

535 and 8,000 times greater than EPA’s 20,000 pCi/L MCL for

tritium, respectively. In 2000, the average tritium concentration was

found to be almost 15 million pCi/L (739 times greater than MCL),

and the highest detected concentration was 272 million pCi/L

(13,600 times MCL). This increase in tritium concentrations

indicates that the ORWBG interim, temporary soil cover may not be

adequate to reduce the contaminant migration from the ORWBG

soil to the groundwater as originally intended. In a May 2001

meeting between SRS, Region 4, and the State, SRS staff stated that

tritium and gross alpha and beta concentrations had increased in the

burial ground groundwater. 

Not All Stakeholders Fully Involved in Prioritization Process

EPA’s policy for prioritizing federal facility cleanup work, as stated in Chapter 5,

Consensus Principles and Recommendations for Improving Federal Facility

Cleanup, emphasizes that priority setting for cleanup actions should involve all

stakeholders. The policy recommends a priority setting process whereby

stakeholders are informed of and participate in important decisions that will affect

the scope and schedules of work to be performed at federal facilities. Further,

priority setting and funding allocations must be transparent and done in a fair

manner that stakeholders perceive as legitimate. The policy defines stakeholders

as: (1) the general public with emphasis on communities of color, indigenous

peoples, and low-income communities; (2) regulators, and (3) state, local, and

tribal governments. 

According to DOE, the SRS site rankings, work plans and the methods used to

select remedial activities included in the plans were not published for information

and comment by all stakeholders, including the general public and local

communities and governments, as recommended in the policy. Each year Region 4

and the State negotiate with DOE on the remedial activities included in annual and

future years’ work plans. Therefore, EPA and the State are aware of the work

plans and the activities included but there was no evidence that Region 4 and the

State were aware of the process or methodology SRS used to initially prioritize

and select projects to be included in these plans. Region 4 indicated that SRS does

provide the SRS Citizen Advisory Board with their goals/priorities and work plans. 

However, the information provided to the Board does not include how DOE’s

priorities relate to site risks and the FFA work prioritization process.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

15

Recent Reviews Acknowledged That Risk Reduction Was Not A

Priority

DOE’s recent review of its Environmental Management Program acknowledged

that actual reduction of risk to workers, the public, and the environment had not

been the primary focus of DOE’s cleanup program. The report, “A Review of the

Environmental Management Program,” issued February 4, 2002, stated that

cleanups needed to be better planned and prioritized to achieve the greatest risk

reduction. The report further states that more than $60 billion had been spent

since the cleanup program’s 1989 inception without a corresponding reduction in

actual risk. In this regard, the report points out that DOE’s current work planning

processes and related interpretations of laws, regulations, and cleanup agreements:

...have created obstacles to achieving cleanup that reduces risk to

human health and the environment as quickly as possible. Instead,

they [processes and interpretations] have resulted in resources

being diverted to low-risk activities [DOE Review of the

Environmental Management Program, dated February 2002, page

ES-2].

 

The DOE review recommends that DOE’s cleanup work be prioritized to achieve

the greatest risk reduction at an accelerated rate.

A General Accounting Office report, Waste Cleanup: Status and Implications of

DOE’s Compliance Agreements, issued May 2002, included a review of SRS’s

process for prioritizing and allocating resources for site cleanups. The report

indicated that SRS developed a decision model for allocating cleanup dollars based

on efficiency with little emphasis on risk. According to the report, outside

reviewers assessing the model concluded that “the model was so strongly weighted

to efficiency that it was unlikely that serious risks to human heath and the

environment could alter the sequencing of work.” DOE officials told the General

Accounting Office that the model was revised so that serious risks receive more

priority.

Region 4 Did Not Evaluate DOE Compliance with FFA Prioritization

Process

Under FFA requirements, DOE is required annually to provide EPA and the State

with a revised FFA Appendix C, and work plans for the current fiscal year

(Appendix D) and three future years (Appendix E). EPA and the State are to

review and comment on the revised Appendix C within 120 days of receipt, and on

work plans no later than December 31 of each fiscal year. By December 1 of each

fiscal year, an FFA progress report for the previous fiscal year is required. This

report generally describes the status of each operable unit, remedial and removal
Report No. 2002-P-00014

16

activities completed, and cleanup activities planned for the current fiscal year.

Region 4 Federal Facilities Branch staff indicated they did not evaluate SRS

progress reports and work plans, along with Appendix C priority listings of

operable units, to assess DOE compliance with the FFA’s work prioritization

requirements. The staff indicated that they reviewed work plans to ensure that a

consistent level of work was maintained from year to year, and that there was a

balance of different types of cleanup activities in the CERCLA pipeline, i.e.,

balance between number of Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies, RODs, and

remedial actions planned. The Region 4 SRS Remedial Project Manager believed

that SRS had, to some degree, addressed most of the worst sites, but Region 4

officials had not really looked at SRS’s work prioritization for a number of years. 

The emphasis in SRS work plans on operable units that were highly ranked by

PREScore was not evaluated. Region 4 staff realized that DOE may have

addressed some low priority operable units to get “bean counts” for DOE

performance measurement purposes. The Remedial Project Manager stated that

targeting resources on sites of lesser risk allowed DOE’s remedial program to

show progress.

Conclusion

Without greater Region 4 oversight and an SRS work prioritization process that

emphasizes reduction of the greatest risks to human health and the environment,

severely contaminated SRS sites could continue to release toxic and radioactive

substances into the environment, groundwater, and surface waters. In addition,

the process used to establish cleanup priorities should (1) involve all stakeholders,

(2) be clear to the public and other stakeholders, and (3) provide assurance that the

greatest threats to human health and the environment will be timely addressed.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Region 4 Administrator:

 3-1. Require that DOE SRS develop a work planning process that ranks and

schedules sites for cleanup based on a priority system that is clear and

easily understood by all stakeholders and provides the greatest risk

reduction. 

 3-2. While PREScore continues to be the process for prioritizing cleanup

actions, evaluate the use of PREScore by DOE SRS staff to ensure that

sites have been properly ranked as to relative risk to human health and the

environment, and require that the rankings be considered in annual and

future work plans. 
Report No. 2002-P-00014

17

 3-3. Establish Regional oversight procedures that ensure SRS sites are ranked

and cleanup projects are planned in compliance with the agreed upon work

prioritization methodology.

 3-4. Require DOE to obtain input from all stakeholders on the scheduling of

sites for cleanups, the methodology used for prioritizing cleanup activities,

and how the methodology relates to site risks.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 4 generally agreed with the recommendations. Region 4 agreed to (1)

work with DOE and the State to clarify SRS’s existing work planning process to

the extent possible, (2) evaluate SRS use of PREScore to ensure that sites are

properly ranked, (3) require SRS to consider these rankings in annual and future

work plans, and (4) review and update Region 4 oversight procedures to ensure

that sites are ranked and cleanups are planned in compliance with the agreed upon

prioritization methodology.

In terms of obtaining input from all stakeholders, Region 4 said that it will discuss

with DOE and the State the possibility for improvement in this area. Region 4

indicated that DOE had established a stakeholder participation program at SRS

based on the April 1996 Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental

Restoration Dialogue Committee and had worked diligently to inform stakeholders

of the methodology used to prioritize site cleanups. This report specifies that all

stakeholders, including local communities, local governments, and the general

public should be involved in establishing federal facility cleanup priorities. 

However, we were not provided information, by Region 4 or DOE SRS, that

shows all stakeholders were included. Rather, DOE SRS informed us that work

plans and cleanup prioritization methodologies were not submitted to the general

public or local governments and communities for information and comment. 

Therefore, DOE needs to improve its outreach to involve all stakeholders as

specified in the subject report.

The OIG requires information on specific actions taken or planned in response to

the recommendations, and milestone dates for completion of planned actions, in

order to resolve the recommendations presented in this chapter.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

18
Report No. 2002-P-00014

19

Chapter 4

Insufficient Region 4 Oversight

Causing Delays and Potential Impacts

to Human Health and the Environment

Remedial actions at highly contaminated SRS sites have been delayed due to late

Region 4 responses to DOE primary cleanup decision documents. Region 4

comments on primary documents were overdue by as much as a year. Further, late

EPA responses and non-attendance at meetings have delayed cleanup milestones

by 8 months or more. In some cases, DOE officials said they proceeded with

cleanup actions without Region 4 approval, contrary to FFA requirements, to

avoid delays. Region 4 staffing was reduced in 1996 but an increasing workload in

1999 and subsequent years resulted in escalating problems with timely review of 

SRS cleanup actions. Federal Facility Branch workload analyses indicated that the

SRS FFA team has been understaffed by a minimum of two full-time equivalents

(FTEs). However, Region 4 management had not allocated the level of staffing

reflected in these workload analyses. For 2002, DOE estimated that late Region 4

responses will cost DOE approximately $2.7 million. These delays may result in

continued contaminant releases to the environment and associated risks to human

health.

EPA’s Review Period for Primary Documents Established by FFA

The SRS FFA established DOE’s responsibility for issuing primary and secondary

documents to EPA and the State (Section XXII). Primary documents include

major cleanup decision documents for which milestones have been established in

the FFA annual work plans. These documents include Remedial Investigation

Work Plans and Reports, Baseline Risk Assessments, Feasibility Studies,

Statements of Basis/Proposed Plans, RODs, Remedial Design Work Plans and

Reports, Remedial Action Work Plans, and Post-Construction/Final Remediation

Reports. The period of review for EPA and the State on primary documents is

generally established in Appendix I of the FFA, and ranges from 45 to 120 days.

Consistently Late Responses and Staff Unavailable for Meetings

Both DOE and the State agency staff told us that, since 1999, Region 4 has been

consistently late in responding to primary cleanup documents and, on occasion,

have been unavailable for meetings on important cleanup decisions. DOE

Summary of Extension Requests for October 2000 through February 4, 2002,

showed that milestones for completion of decisions on five RODs, four Statements

of Basis/Proposed Plans, and two Remedial Investigation reports were delayed due
Report No. 2002-P-00014

20

to “Delay in receipt of US EPA comments,” or “US EPA unable to participate in

meetings.” SRS provided a status report that showed that, as of January 21,

2002, Region 4 was late in responding on 11 primary remedial cleanup documents,

which represent 85 percent of the documents included in the January 21 status

report. Region 4 comments and/or approval on SRS primary documents were

delayed from up to 12 months to just 2 days after the original due date. Details on

the 11 primary documents and resulting delays are shown in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1: Late Region 4 Responses to SRS Primary Documents

Operable Unit/

FFA Primary Document

Original

Due Date

Date

Received

Total

Delay

 TNX Statement of Basis/Proposed Plan (SB/PP) 05/11/01 05/10/02 364 days

 TNX Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 07/06/01 05/10/02 308 days

 

 A-Area Miscellaneous Rubble Pile ROD 12/28/01 Not Rec’d

184 days

as of 06/30/02

 TNX Outfall Delta Remedial Investigation/Baseline

 Risk Assessment 11/23/01 05/10/02 168 days

 TNX Area Groundwater ROD Explanation of

 Significant Difference 12/10/01 05/10/02 151 days

 Old F-Area Seepage Basin Groundwater 

 Corrective Action Plan 11/27/01 04/04/02 128 days

 Ford Building Seepage Basin ROD 09/19/01 12/16/01 88 days

 Fourmile Branch Remedial Investigation Work Plan 01/04/02 03/13/02 68 days

 L-Area Reactor Seepage Basin ROD 

 Technical Evaluation Report 01/12/02 02/14/02 33 days

 Central Shops Burning Rubble Pit SB/PP 01/20/02 01/23/01 3 days

 P-Area Burning/Rubble Pit SB/PP 01/20/02 01/22/02 2 days

Potential Environmental and Human Health Impact of Untimely Region

4 Oversight

Delays in cleaning up hazardous wastes caused by untimely Region 4 action may

result in continued contaminant releases to the environment and associated risks to

human health. Following are two cases in which material impacts on DOE

implementation schedules may have compounded existing risks to human health

and the environment.

ë Late EPA responses to three decision documents related to the TNX operable

unit resulted in a possible 8-month delay in issuance of the ROD. The original

ROD milestone was March 20, 2002, but is expected to be moved to late

November 2002 due to Region 4's inability to respond timely to ROD
Report No. 2002-P-00014

21

supporting documents. A portion of this TNX operable unit represented the

sixth highest of 73 ranked CERCLA units in 2002 based on relative risk to

human health and the environment. The TNX ROD will include remediation of

groundwater highly contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds,

which are migrating to the nearby swamp and surface water and could

eventually enter the Savannah River one-fourth a mile away. 

ë Because of an overdue response from Region 4, DOE also indicated that the

ROD milestone for the A-Area Miscellaneous Rubble Pile operable unit had

been moved from February 25, 2002, to June 20, 2002, a 4-month delay. DOE

further indicated that they expect further delays in issuing this ROD due to the

need for specific language from Region 4 related to institutional controls

included as part of the proposed remedy. The ROD addresses significant

human health threats in the soil due to contamination from polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyl, arsenic, lead, and volatile organic

compounds. 

DOE officials told us that the constant rescheduling of meetings and time

extensions for comments/approvals from Region 4 consume a significant amount

of DOE’s resources. For 2002 alone, DOE estimated that Region 4’s overdue

responses will cost DOE approximately 2,793 days of lost time, or approximately

$2.7 million in resources. A DOE analysis showed that, for 2002, Region 4 had

been 6 to 168 days late on 90 percent (42) of primary documents.

To avoid delays, DOE officials indicated that, in at least two cases, DOE

proceeded with cleanup activities without EPA comments and approvals.

Inadequate Regional Staff Precluded Timely EPA Oversight

Both the SRS staff and the State, as well as DOE, indicated Region 4 is

understaffed in the DOE oversight section. The Region 4 lead Remedial Project

Manager for SRS said that, with current staff, he could not effectively handle the

volume of documents received from SRS for review, comment, and/or approval. 

There are currently three Remedial Project Managers assigned to the SRS. Two

work full time and the third has limited availability. Workload analyses prepared

by the Region 4 Federal Facilities Branch in 1999 and 2002 noted that minimum

staffing required five full-time equivalents. The SRS oversight team was reduced

from four to three Remedial Project Managers in 1996 but workload increases due

to the maturing of SRS’s cleanup program and implementation of the core team

process has elevated the full-time equivalent positions needed for effective SRS

oversight by Region 4. 

For SRS, Region 4 currently oversees cleanups at 84 CERCLA operable units and

25 RCRA waste management units. About 250 sites remain to be evaluated for
Report No. 2002-P-00014

22

future characterization and cleanup actions. In addition, Region 4 oversees the

closure of 51 SRS high level waste tanks. An average of about 30 to 40 highly

technical primary documents, ranging up to several hundred pages, are received by

Region 4 from SRS each year. For each of these primary documents, there are

multiple supporting, secondary documents that Region 4 must review, as well as

numerous periodic reports on SRS activities. Also, the Remedial Project

Managers attend up to 30 plus core team and management meetings that also

include SRS staff and the State. The Region 4 Federal Facilities Branch Chief

stated that he had requested additional staff (currently, two staff positions), but

Regional senior management had told him that the positions were not available.

We noted that, in one case, Region 4 worked around the staffing problem by

assigning an SRS primary document to a Region 4 employee in the Region’s

Science and Ecosystem Support Division. This person was able to quickly

respond to the document and lessen the impact on DOE’s cleanup implementation

schedules.

Conclusion

Late Region 4 responses and/or approvals for primary cleanup decision documents

unnecessarily delay the containment and control of hazardous substance releases

and the cleanup of highly contaminated sites. These delays may result in continued

contaminant releases to the environment and associated risks to human health. 

Recommendations

We recommend that the Region 4 Administrator:

 4-1. Evaluate the workload analyses prepared for the SRS and other DOE FFAs

to determine the number of Remedial Project Managers needed to

effectively oversee these agreements, and obtain and/or allocate resources

necessary to properly staff and support the oversight of these FFAs.

 4-2. If resources cannot be provided to ensure effective oversight, evaluate

whether the deficient staffing and related oversight should be reported as a

material management weakness in the annual Federal Managers’ Financial

Integrity Act report.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 4 indicated that, in consultation with Federal Facilities Restoration and

Reuse Office (FFRRO), the Region’s Federal Facilities Branch had evaluated the

current and planned workload for oversight of SRS and other Region 4 federal

facilities. Based on this evaluation, FFRRO determined that the Branch was six
Report No. 2002-P-00014

23

FTEs below the number needed for effective oversight of DOE facilities in the

Region. Region 4 stated that the Branch had already deferred oversight of 11

major Department of Defense (DOD) facilities to appropriate states and reassigned

the staff from DOD to DOE facility oversight to the maximum extent possible. 

Region 4 indicated that the Region’s Waste Management Division will work

diligently to obtain, reallocate, or reassign staff, where possible, to properly staff

and support the Region’s oversight responsibilities. If adequate resources cannot

be allocated to the Federal Facilities Branch, the Region, in coordination with EPA

national program offices, will evaluate whether the deficient staffing and related

oversight should be reported as a material management weakness.

Region 4's analysis of staffing shortages included staffing needed for oversight of

all DOE facilities. In response to the final report, the Region needs to provide

specific actions taken or planned to correct oversight staffing for the SRS FFA as

detailed in this chapter. Also, milestones for completion of planned actions will be

needed for resolution of the recommendations.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

24
Report No. 2002-P-00014

25

Chapter 5

Improved Procedures and FFA Modifications

Needed for Effective Oversight of

Five-Year Reviews and Site Evaluations

Region 4 needs to improve controls over reviews of DOE five-year review reports. 

Region 4 did not properly review and comment on the DOE 1997 report. Both

the 1997 report and draft 2002 five-year report did not adequately address all

remedial actions subject to the five-year review process. As a result, the five-year

review reports did not reflect the continued protectiveness and compliance of these

remedies with Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate Requirements as required by

CERCLA and EPA guidance.

In addition, the FFA needs to be modified to permit more effective EPA oversight

of five-year reviews and site evaluations. The FFA does not reflect current EPA

requirements for five-year reviews, including the requirement for EPA review and

approval of DOE’s five-year review reports as reflected in EPA guidance, dated

June 2001. The FFA also does not provide a process for resolving inadequate

SRS site evaluations. EPA has encountered serious deficiencies in SRS sample

data validation procedures for site evaluations but site evaluations are not subject

to dispute resolution and enforcement under the FFA. Site evaluations have

remained unresolved for years. Inadequate site evaluations could result in threats

to human health and the environment not being properly identified and addressed

by appropriate remedial actions. 

Region 4 Oversight of Five-Year Reviews Needs Improvement

Region 4 did not formally review and provide comments to DOE on the last

official SRS five-year review of remedial actions, issued in 1997, to ensure that the

review provided adequate assurance that remedial actions remained protective of

human health and the environment. These reviews were considered secondary

documents under the FFA which only required Region 4 review and comment if

appropriate. Consequently, Region 4 provided no formal comments, even though

EPA guidance required Region 4’s review and approval. On the other hand, the

draft 2002 five-year review report for SRS adequately addressed protectiveness

issues, but did not include at least five remedies that should have been subject to a

five-year review. The problems with both the 1997 and 2002 review reports

occurred because SRS believed that remedies that were also RCRA corrective

actions did not require a five-year review, but this was not the case.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

26

CERCLA and NCP Require Five-Year Reviews

CERCLA, as amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization

Act (SARA), and the NCP require that five-year reviews be performed for any

remedial action that results in any hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants

remaining at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure. These are referred to as statutory reviews. EPA guidance also requires

policy reviews for any pre-SARA remedial actions that leave waste on-site at a

level that does not permit unlimited use or exposure and any remedial actions that

will take more than five years to obtain remedial goals of unlimited use and

exposure at the site.

OSWER five-year review guidance, in effect since 1991, requires that long-term

response actions that will take more than five years to complete will be subject to a

five-year review by policy. In 1994, OSWER added the requirement that five-year

reviews performed by other federal agencies required EPA’s review and approval. 

OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, dated May 23, 1991, stated performance of ongoing

or interim remedies expected to take more than five years to accomplish should be

subject to five-year policy reviews. Several ongoing interim remedial actions at

SRS are projected to continue for up to 30 years. Five-year reviews should

determine whether such long-term remedies are performing as intended, interim

remediation goals are being met, and human health and the environment are

protected. OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A, dated July 26, 1994, provided that

other federal agencies could perform five-year reviews of their remedial actions,

but EPA should review it and concur or non-concur. Further OSWER Directive

9355.7-03A, dated December 21, 1995, stated that the most important

determination from a five-year review is whether the remedy remains protective of

human health and the environment. Five-year reviews should fully inform

Congress and the public as to the compliance and protectiveness of remedial

actions.

In June 2001, OSWER issued Directive 9355.7-03B-P, titled Comprehensive FiveYear Review Guidance, which superseded all prior OSWER directives on five-year

reviews. This Directive consolidated prior five-year review requirements, as cited

above, into one policy document. 

Five-Year Review Reports Not Consistent With CERCLA and EPA

Requirements

Only 15 of 23 remedial actions in SRS’s 1997 five-year review report required a

five-year review under CERCLA and EPA guidance. However, for one third of

these actions (i.e., five), DOE did not answer the questions as to the current and

future protectiveness of the remedies or areas of noncompliance. Rather, DOE

noted, “This section is covered by SRS RCRA.” In other words, DOE believed
6

Two of these five remedies have serious problems and will not, in their current form, meet remedial

goals. Groundwater extraction, treatment, and re-injection systems currently have problems in screening metals

from the groundwater, and tritiated water in excess of maximum contaminant levels have continued to migrate into

watersheds.

7

In June 2001, the 1994 five-year review requirements were incorporated into EPA’s Comprehensive

Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P. 

Report No. 2002-P-00014

27

that CERCLA remedies that were also RCRA corrective actions did not require a

five-year review. However, the remedies reviewed in the 1997 report were subject

to CERCLA requirements because they had been issued as RODs.6 In addition,

DOE’s proposed 2002 five-year review did not include five remedies, that should

have been reviewed. Inadequate five-year reviews and omission of remedial

actions from the five-year review process does not provide assurance to Congress

and the public as to the continued protectiveness of such actions.

FFA Needs Modifications to Improve Region 4 Oversight

The SRS FFA needs modifications related to requirements for remedial action fiveyear reviews and site evaluations to improve Region 4 oversight. Specifically:

ë The FFA has not been modified to reflect 1994 changes in EPA five-year

review guidance, which permitted federal facilities to perform five-year

reviews with EPA review and concurrence/nonconcurrence7. The FFA

currently provides that EPA and the State will perform the five-year

reviews of SRS remedial actions. However, DOE performs those reviews. 

The FFA contains no provision for Region 4 review and approval of fiveyear reviews, as currently required by EPA guidance. 

ë Although site evaluations are primary decision documents for continuing

sites into the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study phase, the SRS FFA

currently lists site evaluations as secondary documents. Such documents

are only subject to review and comment by Region 4, and not the FFA

dispute resolution and enforcement provisions. Region 4 and the State

have noted serious problems with the quality of SRS site evaluations. The

FFA contains no process for resolving disagreements over site evaluations,

and some site evaluations have been in “limbo” for years.

Deficiencies in 1997 Five-Year Report Not Identified and Resolved

EPA guidance for five-year reviews, in effect when the SRS FFA was finalized

(OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, dated May 23, 1991), indicated that EPA and/or

states were responsible for performing five-year reviews of remedial actions. EPA

supplemental guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A, dated July 26, 1994)
Report No. 2002-P-00014

28

changed the 1991 policy to indicate that, generally, each federal agency would

perform five-year reviews of remedial actions implemented at their respective

facilities. This policy change was subsequently incorporated into EPA’s

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P)

issued in June 2001. Under both the 1994 and current 2001guidance, EPA is

responsible for evaluating the reviews performed by other federal agencies and

providing concurrence/nonconcurrence. However, the SRS FFA was not modified

to reflect the 1994 change in EPA guidance. As noted previously in this chapter,

the SRS DOE 1997 five-year review was issued without EPA comments, and the

2002 SRS five-year review omitted five CERCLA actions that required a five-year

review. 

Problems with SRS Site Evaluations Remain Unresolved

The Region 4 SRS Remedial Project Manager indicated that at the time the SRS

FFA was executed, EPA was more focused on cleaning up sites where there was

known contamination, whereas sites where there was no information as to releases

or potential releases of contaminants were considered secondary. However, since

that time Region 4 has realized that sites on the SRS site evaluation list could

represent threats to human health and the environment and need to be properly

addressed.

Site evaluations identify and screen newly discovered or existing potentially

contaminated areas and determine whether there is a threat to human health and

the environment that warrants further action. The State has the lead for oversight

of SRS site evaluations. The SRS Region 4 remedial project manager said that the

State and Region 4 had serious concerns with the quality of SRS site evaluations,

including the extent of sampling and testing performed by SRS and quality

assurance/quality control standards. For example, only 10 percent of sample data

was subject to validation procedures, whereas 100 percent validation is used by

SRS during the remedial investigation/ feasibility study phase. Also, unusable

sample data was not flagged by SRS during verification/validation, and data

validation criteria was not clear.

According to the State, as of February 2002, there were seven SRS site

evaluations for which State and EPA concerns had not been resolved, and had

been outstanding as far back as 1995. Since the FFA designated site evaluations as

secondary documents not subject to the FFA dispute resolution and enforcement

process, there was no process for resolving deficient site evaluations.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

29

Conclusion

CERCLA and EPA guidance requires that five-year reviews of remedial

actions verify the continued protectiveness and compliance of remedial

actions. Region 4 oversight procedures for DOE five-year reviews did not

ensure that the reviews were consistent with CERCLA and EPA guidance. 

To ensure DOE understands EPA’s five-year review guidance, DOE

should be informed of EPA requirements for five-year reviews on RCRA

sites when selected cleanup actions are issued as RODs. Further, the FFA

does not currently reflect EPA requirements for five-year reviews

performed by another federal agency, especially EPA review and approval

of such reviews. The FFA also designates site evaluations as secondary

documents that are not subject to the FFA dispute resolution and

enforcement process. As a result, SRS site evaluations, determined to be

inadequate by EPA and the State, have remained unresolved. Inadequate

SRS site evaluations could result in risks to human health and the

environment not being addressed.

Recommendation

We recommend the Region 4 Administrator:

 5-1. Require DOE SRS to perform five-year reviews for RCRA corrective

actions that are also included in CERCLA RODs.

 5-2. Establish procedures to ensure that SRS five-year review reports are

properly reviewed by appropriate Region 4 personnel and concurrence or

nonconcurrence is provided for each report.

 5-3. Negotiate modifications to the SRS FFA to provide that: 

• DOE perform the five-year reviews of remedial actions at SRS and that

EPA will review the DOE five-year review reports and provide

concurrence or nonconcurrence as currently required in EPA guidance. 

• Five-year review reports and site evaluations are primary documents

subject to the FFA dispute resolution and enforcement procedures.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 4 agreed with the findings and recommendations presented in this chapter. 

Region 4 will (1) require that DOE perform five-year reviews of all CERCLA

actions including those remedial actions completed as part of RCRA corrective

actions; (2) establish procedures to ensure proper review and
Report No. 2002-P-00014

30

concurrence/nonconcurrence with DOE five-year review reports; (3) seek

modifications to the FFA regarding EPA review and approval of DOE five-year

reviews and the designation of five-year review reports as primary documents; and

(4) evaluate, in consultation with FFRRO, the need to also designate site

evaluations as primary documents. Region 4 indicated that, in August 2002, they

received a draft Site Evaluation Protocol from DOE that will provide consistent

methods for conducting site evaluations at SRS and require EPA review and

approval of related Site Evaluation Reports.

The OIG requires information on specific actions taken or planned in response to

the recommendations and milestones for completion of planned actions will be

needed for final resolution of the recommendations presented in this chapter. 
Report No. 2002-P-00014

31

Chapter 6

DOE Level of Funding May Not Be Sufficient

A 1995 dispute resolution between EPA and DOE established the current level of

SRS remedial funding. However, this funding level may not be sufficient to

maintain the current level of cleanup effort or provide expeditious cleanup of

CERCLA sites. DOE’s recent review of its Environmental Management Program

acknowledged that DOE facility cleanups are not being accomplished expeditiously

because resources have been focused on low priority activities. Additionally,

increasing costs for long-term response actions have and will continue to erode

SRS’s “consistent level” of remedial funding, and may preclude new starts. 

Further, Region 4 has not determined the total long-term estimated costs for SRS

CERCLA cleanups and whether SRS’s current funding level will result in

containment and cleanup of hazardous substances within a reasonable time frame.

CERCLA Requires Expeditious Completion of Remedial Actions

The SRS FFA states that DOE shall take all necessary steps and use its best efforts

to obtain timely funding to meet its FFA obligations and milestone dates, including

the submission of timely budget requests (Section XXXIX). CERCLA Section

120 further states there should be agreement on the “expeditious” completion of all

necessary remedial actions, and that remedial actions at facilities subject to

interagency agreements be completed as “expeditiously as practicable.” The FFA

does not include provisions for Region 4 involvement in SRS’s budget formulation

and cost estimations for remedial activities. The FFA does provide for Region 4

review and comment on annual and future years milestones, but these work plans

do not include individual project cost estimates or operation and maintenance costs

for ongoing remedies.

Dispute Resolution Agreement Provided Level of Effort and Funding

In 1995, Region 4 and SRS negotiated and resolved a formal dispute over DOE

funding for FFA cleanups. According to Region 4 staff, DOE SRS in 1995 agreed

to budget about $100 million annually to maintain a consistent level of remedial

investigations and related cleanup activities. The $100 million annual budget

reflected the funds needed to accomplish milestones in the annual and future work

plans at that time and the level of effort that EPA and State staffs could effectively

review. The level of remedial effort and funding was not based on risk reduction

or controlling releases of hazardous substances within a reasonable time frame. 
8

 DOE Office of Environmental Management Reports: Accelerating Cleanup, Paths to Closure, June

1998, and Status Report on Paths to Closure, March 2000.

Report No. 2002-P-00014

32

Long-Term Cleanup Costs May Adversely Impact Remedial Budget

 

At the time of our review, Region 4 was not aware of the project costs for annual

or long-term estimated costs of remedial operations. Therefore, Region 4 did not

know how long it would take SRS to complete all agreed to remedial actions. 

According to the 1998 and 2000 DOE Paths to Closure reports, the long-term

CERCLA cleanup costs at SRS ranged from about $2 billion to $4.4 billion, and

would be completed in 20388. However, neither report specifically identified

CERCLA cost estimates versus other cleanup estimates. Based on the estimates, a

$100 million annual budget would require 20 to 44 years (excluding affects of

inflation) to accomplish the current inventory of remedial cleanup activities, and

the effects of inflation on a level budget could more than double these years.

 

Region 4 agreed to a consistent level of effort and related funding without

determining the total scope and estimated cost of CERCLA cleanups at the SRS. 

The consistent level of effort and funding was not based on reduction of risk to

human health and the environment within any specified time frame. As a result,

Region 4 does not know if the level of effort and funding is adequate. 

 

Because of the increasing number of long-term remedies, such as groundwater

extraction, treatment and re-injection systems, with annual recurring costs, SRS

may not be able to maintain the same level of effort with the same level of funds. 

SRS completed many of the short-term, less costly containment and control

remedies at CERCLA units early in the FFA process. With rising costs for longterm, more expensive response actions, the availability of funds to maintain the

same number of action starts under the current funding level will be difficult. The

State indicated that DOE is already cutting the number of remedial investigation

starts and RODs in future work plans.

DOE Review Acknowledged Cleanups Not Being Timely Completed

The DOE’s Review of the Environmental Management Program, issued February

4, 2002, indicated that DOE facilities had not properly focused program resources

on quickly reducing risk to public health and the environment and had expended

resources for low risk activities. The report further states: “The reality of an

extended cleanup schedule is that eventually it will lead to more prolonged and

severe public health and environmental risks.” The report recommends that

program resources be increased and focused principally on cleanup actions that

achieve the greatest risk reduction at an accelerated rate.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

33

Conclusion

Region 4 needs to obtain more information on SRS budgets and projected costs

estimates related to long-term response actions and total estimated final cleanup

costs. This information is needed to assess the adequacy of the current funding

level to maintain the current level of effort and provide expeditious cleanup of

CERCLA sites.

Recommendations

 

We recommend that the Region 4 Administrator:

 

6-1. Obtain DOE cost estimates for long-term response actions and final

CERCLA cleanup at SRS to determine whether the current funding level is

sufficient to (1) maintain the current level of remedial cleanup activities and

(2) provide adequate protection to human health and the environment

within a reasonable time frame. If not, negotiate an adjustment in the

funding level with DOE to ensure that, at a minimum, the current annual

level of remedial actions are maintained.

 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 4's response indicated that the Region receives cost information for longterm response actions and final CERCLA cleanups at SRS on an annual basis. The

Region further stated that the FFA requires EPA agreement on DOE’s planned

actions and budget for the current fiscal year and the subsequent two years. 

Information and documentation provided during the evaluation did indicate that

Region 4 received SRS annual and future work plans as required by the FFA, but

there was no evidence that Region 4 received project cost or specific budget

information related to these work plans. On at least two occasions, we asked the

Region 4 lead Remedial Project Manager if any project cost information or total

cost estimates for cleanup of SRS CERCLA sites were received and we were told

they were not. DOE SRS staff told us that they provided EPA with a budget

overview on an annual basis. However, this does not show costs by project or by

CERCLA units. Also, total long-term cost cleanup estimates that were provided

to us by SRS show costs by DOE program category and not by applicable law or

regulation such as CERCLA. Therefore, we do not understand how Region 4

could be receiving final CERCLA cleanup costs for SRS. 

In addition, we could not find any provision in the SRS FFA that required that

SRS submit their budget to EPA or that EPA had to agree with the budget. 

Section XX of the FFA requires that DOE submit current fiscal year and two

future year work plans to EPA for review and approval but does not require that
Report No. 2002-P-00014

34

project cost estimates and related budget requests also be submitted with the work

plans. This Section further states that when DOE receives its budget allotment for

the current fiscal year, EPA and the State will be notified of the receipt and a

revised work plan will be submitted to EPA for review and concurrence within 30

business days of receipt of the budget allotment. However, the work plans we

were provided only included a project description and projected milestone dates

for project completion. There were no budget requests, project costs, or budget

allotment information in these work plans. 

Region 4 did not provide any documentation during the evaluation and in the

response to the draft report to show that the Region receives project costs or total

long-term remedial cost estimates from DOE. To resolve this recommendation,

Region 4 needs to provide documentation that it has received current total

CERCLA cleanup cost estimates and has made a determination, based on these

estimates, that the current DOE funding level for SRS remedial actions will

provide expeditious cleanups as required by CERCLA.
9

EPA Region 4 officials interviewed included the Federal Facilities Branch Chief, DOE Section Chief,

and Lead Remedial Project Manager for SRS. EPA OSWER Official included the FFRRO Coordinator for

DOE/Regions 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. DOE SRS officials included the Assistant Manager of Environment, Science, and

Technology; Environmental Restoration Division Director; FFA Project Manager; and various SRS contractor

technical support personnel. The State staff interviewed included the FFA Project Coordinator and his immediate

staff. 

Report No. 2002-P-00014

35

Appendix 1

Details on Scope and Methodology

The SRS evaluation fieldwork was performed by the OIG from September 2001 through July

2002. This evaluation was performed in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards,

issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

Preliminary research and fieldwork were conducted at Region 4 headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia,

and the DOE SRS and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control offices

in Aiken and Columbia, South Carolina. The scope of our review included cleanup actions from

June 1992 to December 2001.

We interviewed Region 4 staff, DOE staff and contractors, OSWER officials, and staff from the

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Titles of principal persons

interviewed are shown in footnote below9. In addition, we evaluated controls established by the

SRS FFA to ensure consistency and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies,

and Region 4’s implementation of these procedures to ensure that remedial actions initiated by

DOE were protective of human health and the environment to the maximum extent practicable. 

To assess consistency of the FFA and related remedial actions with CERCLA and the NCP, we:

ë Compared FFA provisions to requirements in CERCLA and the NCP.

ë Identified all 41 remedial actions approved by Region 4 under the FFA and reviewed decision

documents and supporting data for each action.

ë Reviewed SRS FFA annual progress reports to ascertain EPA and State review and

concurrence with FFA remedial actions.

ë Interviewed officials (see titles in footnote 8) regarding: (1) the consistency of FFA

requirements with CERCLA and NCP; (2) any Regional guidance pertaining to federal facility

cleanups and the consistency of guidance with CERCLA and the NCP; (3) whether SRSselected remedies met statutory and regulatory requirements; and (4) whether there were

concerns with any SRS remedies to date.

To assess the adequacy of Region 4 oversight and implementation of the SRS FFA, we:
Report No. 2002-P-00014

36

ë Identified and evaluated primary Region 4 controls and procedures for ensuring compliance

with FFAs and ultimately CERCLA and the NCP. This included specific controls and

 procedures related to establishing FFA milestones and ensuring that milestones are met.

ë Reviewed FY 1999 through 2001 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act reports for the

Region 4 Waste Management Division to identify any material weaknesses related to

oversight of federal facility cleanups.

ë Interviewed officials (see titles in footnote 8) to identify potential problems with: (1) Region 4

oversight of SRS cleanup activities; (2) FFA requirements; (3) DOE compliance with major

FFA requirements and milestones; and (4) Region 4 guidance related to federal facility

cleanups.

ë Listed and evaluated all CERCLA operable units at SRS (84) and cleanup actions approved

and initiated at each unit from 1992 through December 2001. This analysis included the

media involved, contaminants of concern, milestone dates, selected remedies, remedial action

status, five-year review requirements, and institutional controls and monitoring.

ë Evaluated SRS land use control plans and remedial action five-year review reports for 

compliance with applicable policies and guidance and to determine whether institutional

controls were properly implemented, maintained, and monitored. This included a review of

RODs issued between 1992 and 2001 to determine that responsibility for implementation and

maintenance of institutional controls were properly established in the RODs.

ë Obtained FFA work plans with milestones and compared milestones for completion of cleanup

actions to extension requests and/or actual completion dates.

ë Obtained and reviewed environmental and water quality monitoring reports for ground and

surface waters within and outside DOE facility boundaries to identify contaminant trends and

related risks. This included monitoring reports for groundwater in the highly contaminated

areas of SRS.

ë Obtained and reviewed State and Centers for Disease Control public health assessments to

identify risks from SRS activities and related environmental contamination.

To evaluate the impact of funding on DOE compliance with the FFA, we:

ë Reviewed FFAs for requirements related to DOE budgets, annual plans, and EPA involvement

in DOE planning and budgeting; and evaluated reports, plans, and correspondence related to

these FFA requirements.

ë Interviewed Region 4 and DOE SRS staff (see titles in footnote 8) regarding the FFA

planning process, EPA’s involvement in DOE’s budgeting for remedial cleanups, the reasons

for any funding shortfalls, and impacts of any funding problems on accomplishment of major

milestones.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

37

Appendix 2

Prior Reports on Federal Facility Cleanups

We reviewed various management, evaluation, and audit reports that directly or indirectly related

to federal facility cleanups. The principal reports reviewed are listed below:

EPA OIG Reports:

ë Superfund Audit Report, Laboratory Data Quality at Federal Facility Superfund

Sites, #7100132, March 1997.

ë RCRA Audit Report, Report on the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS)

Program for the Hanford Federal Facility, #0-P-00012, March 30, 2000.

ë Superfund Audit Report, Backlog of Five-Year Review Reports Increased Nearly

Threefold, #1999-P-218, September 30, 1999.

DOE Internal Management Reports:

ë Tritiated Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Evaluation for 1994, #DOE/RL-94-

77, August 1994.

ë Office of Environmental Management Reports: Accelerating Cleanup, Paths to

Closure, June 1998, and Status Report on Paths to Closure, March 2000.

ë A Review of the Environmental Management Program (a.k.a.: The Top to Bottom

Review), February 4, 2002.

DOE OIG Reports:

ë Sale of Land at Oak Ridge, #DOE/IG-0502, May 2001.

ë The Decontamination and Decommissioning Contract at the East Tennessee

Technology Park, #DOE/IG-0481, September 2000.

ë Waste Characterization at Oak Ridge, #ER-B-00-03, June 2000.

ë Decontamination and Decommission at the East Tennessee Technology Park,

#ER-B-99-01, December 1998.

ë Groundwater Remediation at the Savannah River Site, ER-B-96-02, June 11,

1996. 
Report No. 2002-P-00014

38

General Accounting Office Reports:

ë Nuclear Cleanup - Difficulties in Coordinating Activities Under Two

Environmental Laws, GAO/RCED-95-66, December 1994. 

ë Department of Energy - National Priorities Needed for Meeting Environmental

Agreements, GAO/RCED-95-1, March 1995. 

ë Environmental Protection - Issues Facing the Energy and Defense Environmental

Management Programs, GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD -96-127, March 21, 1996. 

ë Nuclear Cleanup - Completion of Standards and Effectiveness of Land Use

Planning Are Uncertain, GAO/RCED-94-144, August 26, 1994. 

ë Superfund - More Emphasis Needed On Risk Reduction, GAO/RCED-96-168,

May 8, 1996.

ë Federal Facilities - Consistent Relative Risk Evaluations Needed for Prioritizing

Cleanups, GAO/RCED-96-150, June 1996.

ë Superfund - Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve

Program Management Issues, GAO/RCED-99-111, April 1999.

ë Nuclear Cleanup - DOE Should Reevaluate Waste Disposal Options Before

Building New Facilities, GAO-01-441, May 2001.

ë Waste Cleanup - Status and Implications of DOE’s Compliance Agreements,

GAO-02-567, May 2002.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

39

Appendix 3

 

Records of Decision Issued Under SRS FFA

 

ROD Date 

Operable

Unit No.

Operable Unit

Name

Remedial

Action PREScore

RODs With

No Cleanup Actions

29-Jun-92 2 Met Lab HWMF IROD Unknown

29-Jun-92 3 A/M-Area GW IROD 4.27

29-Jun-92 1 M-Area HWMF IROD 1.79

10-Sep-93 6 F-Area HWMF ROD Unknown No action ROD

10-Sep-93 7 H-Area HWMF ROD Unknown No action ROD

23-Sep-94 33 MWMF ROD 42.66 No action ROD

23-Sep-94 34 Tank 105-C HWMF ROD Unknown No action ROD

09-Nov-94 29 TNX Area GW IROD 22.21

13-Feb-95 35 Par Pond IROD 50.34

06-Mar-95 27 D-Area Oil SB IROD 2.7

13-Apr-95 8 F-Area GW IROD Unknown

13-Apr-95 9 H-Area GW IROD 58.3

11-Sep-95 12 M-Area West ROD 9.66 No action ROD

01-Mar-96 32 ORWBG IROD 76.88

18-Jun-96 18 Burma Road RP ROD 6.49 No action ROD

27-Mar-97 13 Silverton Road Unit ROD 2.67 IC/GW monitoring

27-Mar-97 15 D-Area BRP ROD 11.82 IC/GW monitoring

27-Mar-97 4 Gunsite 720 RP ROD 0 No action ROD

27-Mar-97 45 Grace Road Site ROD 0 No action ROD

27-Mar-97 5 Gunsite 113 A-Road ROD 0 No action ROD

27-Mar-97 14 F-Area BRP ROD 13.98 IC only

14-May-97 16 Old F-Area SB ROD 43.18

14-May-97 11 Central Shops BRP ROD 0.43 No action ROD

30-Sep-97 17 L-Area Acid/Caustic Basin/ ROD 59.62

L-Area Oil & Chemical Basin

23-Mar-98 20 K-Area BPOP ROD 21 IC only

26-Jun-98 51 Motor Shops SB ROD 9.36 No action ROD

04-Aug-98 10 Fire Dept HT Facility ROD 2.64 No action ROD

04-Sep-98 23 F-Area RB ROD 7.47

15-Sep-98 1/ 67 D-Area CPBR ROD 17.94 No action ROD

15-Sep-98 1/ 41 P-Area CPBR ROD 17.94 No action ROD

15-Sep-98 1/ 54 F-Area CPBR ROD 17.94 No action ROD

15-Sep-98 1/ 42 C-Area CPBR ROD 17.94 No action ROD

15-Sep-98 1/ 52 K-Area CPBR ROD 17.94 No action ROD

19-Oct-98 27 D-Area Oil SB ROD 2.7 No action ROD

29-Dec-98 31 C-Area BRP IROD 17.94

20-May-99 57 Ford Bldg Waste ROD 2.96 No action ROD

28-Sep-99 24 CMP Pits IROD 33.55

15-Mar-00 47 SRL SB ROD 21.9

01-Aug-00 73 Georgia Fields Site ROD 1.08 No action ROD

03-Aug-00 19 A-Area BRP IROD 31.89

31-Aug-00 2/ 39 P-Area BPOP ROD 21 IC/soil. GW/no action

31-Aug-00 2/ 26 L-Area BPOP ROD 21 IC/soil. GW/no action

31-Aug-00 60 C-Area Reactor SB ROD 26.88

07-Dec-00 28 Misc Chemical Basin/Metals BP IROD 4.26

22-Jun-01 40 K-Area BRP/RP ROD 10.86
Report No. 2002-P-00014

40

14-Sep-01 32 ORWBG (Solvent Tanks) IROD 76.88

Footnotes:

1/ One ROD issued on 09/15/98 for five operable units.

2/ One ROD issued on 08/31/00 for two operable units.

Abbreviations:

BPOP Bingham Pump Outage Pit

BRP Burning/Rubble Pit

CPBR Coal Pile Burning Runoff Basin

IC Institutional Controls

HWMF Hazardous Waste Management Facility

MWMF Mixed Waste Management Facility

ORWBG Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground

RP Rubble Pile

SB Seepage Basin
Report No. 2002-P-00014

41

Appendix 4

Agency Response

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Region 4 Responses to EPA Office of Inspector General

 Draft Report

Federal Facility Cleanups: Improvement Needed

In EPA Oversight of Cleanup Actions at the

Savannah River Nuclear Facility

Assignment No. 2001-0001522 

FROM: J. I. Palmer, Jr.

Regional Administrator

Region 4

 

TO: John A. Price

Project Manager

EPA OIG

This memorandum provides EPA Region 4's responses to recommendations presented in

the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluation of the EPA Region 4 Oversight of

Department of Energy Cleanup Activities at the Savannah River Site. It is my understanding that

the draft report reviewed by my staff is subject to revision by OIG and, therefore, does not

represent the final position of the OIG on the subjects reported.

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, EPA Region 4 is providing these comments to you

within 30 days of the draft report date. These comments address the factual accuracy of the draft

report, the policy implications of the recommendations, and plans for taking corrective action as

recommended. EPA Region 4 has consulted with the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, and the EPA Office of Enforcement

and Compliance, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, in preparing these comments. At this

time, EPA Region 4 plans to implement corrective actions, as acknowledged in our individual

responses, by September 30, 2003. Please feel free to contact Jon Johnston, Federal Facilities

Branch Chief, at 404/562-8527 or at johnston.jon@epa.gov regarding any questions you may

have regarding EPA Region 4's responses.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

42

2

OIG RECOMMENDATIONS AND EPA RESPONSES

2-1. Evaluate potential benefits of using the SRS primary document protocols and core team

process for oversight of cleanups at other federal facilities.

We agree, and in fact, EPA Region 4 Federal Facilities Branch (FFB) has previously

implemented a similar core team approach for the Region’s Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC) and active DOD bases and facilities, which was the basis from which the SRS core team

process was derived. These management alliances, initially formed in 1994 in the State of Florida,

consist of facility (project) teams, state specific management teams and a regional program

management team. Additionally, in June 2002, Region 4 signed an agreement with DOE and

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) executives to develop

streamlining processes that, in part, includes the implementation of this process at DOE’s Oak

Ridge Reservation (ORR). 

3-1. Require that DOE SRS develop a work planning process that ranks and schedules sites for

cleanup based on a priority system that is clear and easily understood by all stakeholders

and provides the greatest risk reduction.

EPA will work directly with DOE SRS and the South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to improve the clarity of the existing work planning process to

the extent possible in absence of a national standard method for risk-based prioritization.

3-2. While PREScore continues to be the process for prioritizing cleanup actions, evaluate the

use of PREScore by DOE SRS staff to ensure that sites have been properly ranked as to

relative risk to human health and the environment, and require that the rankings be

considered in annual and future work plans.

EPA Region 4 will evaluate the use of PREScore and will require that the rankings be

considered in annual and future work plans. Based on existing work planning and evaluation

protocols, it is anticipated that the PREScore process may be formally replaced with an alternative

method. EPA will ensure that the alternative method will properly rank sites relative to human

health and the environment.

3-3. Establish Regional oversight procedures that ensure SRS sites are ranked and cleanup

projects are planned in compliance with the agreed upon work prioritization methodology.

EPA Region 4 will review and update oversight procedures to ensure sites are ranked and

cleanup projects are planned in compliance with the agreed upon methodology.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

43

3

3-4. Require DOE to obtain input from all stakeholders on the scheduling of sites for cleanups,

the methodology used for prioritizing cleanup activities, and how the methodology relates

to site risks.

In cooperation with EPA and SCDHEC, DOE SRS has an extensive stakeholder (public)

participation program in place based on the national consensus recommendations of the April

1996 Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. 

DOE SRS works diligently to inform and obtain input from as many stakeholders as possible on

the scheduling of sites for cleanups, the methodology used for prioritizing cleanup activities, and

how the methodology relates to site risks. EPA Region 4 will discuss with DOE SRS and

SCDHEC the possibilities for improvement in this area. 

4-1. Evaluate the workload analyses prepared for the SRS and other DOE FFAs to determine

the number of Remedial Project Managers needed to effectively oversee these agreements

and obtain and/or allocate resources necessary to properly staff and support the oversight

of these FFAs.

EPA Region 4 Federal Facilities Branch, in consultation with the EPA HQ Federal

Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, has evaluated the current and planned workload for the

SRS, other DOE, and DOD facilities to determine the number of Remedial Project Managers

needed to effectively oversee these agreements. FFRRO’s analysis is that the Branch is estimated

to be six FTE below the number of RPMs needed for effective oversight of DOE facilities in the

Region. The Branch has already deferred facility oversight to states for eleven major DOD

facilities formerly overseen by FFB, and reassigned staff from DOD to DOE oversight to the

maximum extent possible. The Waste Management Division continues to review its priorities and

available work force to determine if staff need to be and are available to be reassigned. The

Region will diligently work to obtain and/or allocate resources necessary to properly staff and

support the Region’s oversight responsibilities. 

4-2. If resources cannot be provided to ensure effective oversight, evaluate whether the

deficient staffing and related oversight should be reported as a material management

weakness in the annual Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act report.

EPA Region 4 will ensure that if resources cannot be provided to ensure effective

oversight, the Region in coordination with EPA national program offices, will evaluate whether

the deficient staffing and related oversight should be reported as a material management weakness

in the annual Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act report.

5-1. Require DOE SRS to perform five-year reviews for RCRA corrective actions that are also

included in CERCLA RODs.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

44

4

EPA Region 4 will require DOE SRS to perform five-year reviews for RCRA corrective

actions that are also included in CERCLA RODs

5-2. Establish procedures to ensure that SRS five-year review reports are properly reviewed by

appropriate Region 4 personnel and concurrence or nonconcurrence is provided for each

report.

EPA Region 4 will establish procedures to ensure that SRS five-year review reports are

properly reviewed by appropriate Region 4 personnel and concurrence or nonconcurrence is

provided for each report. 

5-3. Negotiate modifications to the SRS FFA to provide that:

P DOE perform the five-year reviews of remedial actions at SRS and that EPA will

review the DOE five-year review reports and provide concurrence or

nonconcurrence as currently required in EPA guidance.

P Five-year review reports and site evaluations are primary documents subject to the

FFA dispute resolution and enforcement procedures.

EPA Region 4 will initiate negotiations to modify the SRS FFA to provide that five-year

reviews of remedial actions at SRS will be performed by DOE, and that EPA will provide the

concurrence or nonconcurrence as currently required in the EPA guidance. Further, EPA

Region 4, will propose FFA modifications making the five-year review report a primary document

subject to the FFA dispute resolution and enforcement process. The Region, in consultation with

the Federal Facility Enforcement Office, will evaluate whether or not site evaluations should be

primary documents subject to the FFA dispute resolution and enforcement process. Historically,

site evaluations have been used as an effective method to quickly evaluate, screen, and rank sites,

according to potential and/or actual risk, and establish the need to continue further remedial

response actions. DOE SRS, in response to concerns raised by the region and the State of South

Carolina, submitted in August 2002, a draft Site Evaluation Protocol that will provide an

agreement on consistent methods for conducting site evaluations and provide for EPA’s review

and approval of the Site Evaluation Reports. 

6-1. Obtain DOE cost estimates for long-term response actions and final CERCLA cleanup at

SRS to determine whether the current funding level is sufficient to (1) maintain the current

level of remedial cleanup activities and (2) provide adequate protection to human health

and the environment within a reasonable time frame. If not, negotiate an adjustment in the

funding level with DOE to ensure that, at a minimum, the current annual level of remedial

actions are maintained.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

45

5

EPA Region 4 receives DOE cost estimates on an annual basis for long-term response

actions and final CERCLA cleanups at SRS and its other DOE sites. The existing terms of the

FFAs, agreed to by the Region, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA),

and DOE’s national program office, requires that DOE and EPA agree on planned actions and

budget for the current fiscal year, the subsequent two fiscal years, and more general planning

information (including budget) for the remaining years of cleanup work. The Region has, and will

continue to ensure that adequate protection of human health and the environment can be met

within the plan and scope of the FFAs. This approach is outlined in the Federal Facilities

Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee Report as noted in the EPA OIG Draft Report. 

The Region has, and will continue to negotiate for an adequate funding level with DOE to ensure

that, at a minimum, the current annual level of response actions are maintained consistent with

nationally agreed upon FFA budget and funding language. Additionally, as part of DOE’s Top to

Bottom Review initiative, EPA and the State of South Carolina have signed a letter of intent with

DOE to accelerate cleanup, making additional FY 03 cleanup funding available.
Report No. 2002-P-00014

46
Report No. 2002-P-00014

47

Appendix 5

Distribution

EPA Headquarters Offices

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Director, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office

Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

Comptroller (2731A)

Agency Followup Official (2710A)

Agency Followup Coordinator (2724A)

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (1301A)

Director, Office of Regional Operations (1108A)

EPA Region 4

Regional Administrator

Director, Waste Management Division

Chief, Federal Facilities Branch

Audit Followup Coordinator/Liaison

EPA Office of Inspector General

Inspector General (2410)