Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

SUPERFUND

Backlog of Five-Year Review Reports

 Increased Nearly Threefold

1999-P-218

September 30, 1999 
Inspector General Division(s)

 Conducting the Audit

Headquarters Audit Division

Washington, D.C.

Region(s) covered Region 1

Boston, MA

Region 2

New York, NY

Region 3

Philadelphia, PA

Region 4

Atlanta, GA

Region 5

Chicago, IL

Region 6

Dallas, TX

Region 7

Kansas City, KS

Region 10

Seattle, WA

Program Office(s) Involved Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

S Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
MEMORANDUM September 30, 1999

SUBJECT: Follow-up Audit of Superfund Five-Year Review Program

Audit Report No. 1999-P-218

FROM: Michael Simmons /s/

Deputy Assistant Inspector General 

 for Internal Audits 

TO: Timothy Fields, Jr.

Assistant Administrator for

 Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Our follow-up audit report on the five-year review program is attached. 

Generally, we found that (1) the backlog of overdue reviews has significantly increased

since the time of our prior audit, (2) review reports need to be more informative, and (3)

the Agency needs to more effectively communicate the results of reviews. We note

your decision to declare the backlog of five-year reviews as an Agency level weakness

under FMFIA and to include the completion of the reviews as a target under the

Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan. We also recommend that you

determine, in consultation with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, whether a

Government Performance and Results Act measure for five-year reviews should be

established.

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, please provide this office a written

response to the report within 90 days of the report date. For corrective actions planned

but not yet completed by your response date, reference to specific milestone dates will

assist us in deciding whether to close this report.

This audit report contains findings and corrective actions the OIG recommends

to help improve the five-year review program. As such, it represents the opinion of the

OIG. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in

accordance with established audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the issues

contained in this report do not represent the final EPA position, and are not binding

upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of

Justice.
We would like to thank your staff for their cooperation. Should your staff have

any questions about this report, please have them contact John T. Walsh, Divisional

Inspector General, Headquarters Audit Division, at (202) 260-5113, or Bill Samuel of

my staff at (202) 260-3189.

Attachment

-2-
Report No. 1999-P-218

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of

1986, requires that remedial actions, where

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants

remain on-site, be reviewed every five years to

assure that human health and the environment

continue to be protected. The statute also requires

that the President (delegated to the EPA

Administrator) report to the Congress a list of facilities

for which reviews are required, the results of all

reviews, and any actions taken as a result of the

reviews.

On March 24, 1995, the Office of Inspector General

(OIG) issued a report, “Backlog Warrants Higher

Priority for Five-Year Reviews.” The report noted that

a substantial number of five-year reviews had not

been performed due largely to the low priority given

them by Agency management and included several

recommendations for improving the program. Agency

management agreed to implement the

recommendations or take other actions to address

the issues.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this follow-up audit were to evaluate

program progress since the issuance of our prior

report, and determine if (1) the Agency has

implemented an effective program for reviewing sites

every five years to ensure that containment remedies

remain protective, and (2) the public and Congress

are receiving timely information from five-year

reviews about the effectiveness of remedial actions.
ii Report No. 1999-P-218

RESULTS IN BRIEF As of March 31, 1999, 143 five-year reviews were

overdue. The average overdue period was 17

months. The backlog of reviews is now nearly three

times larger than at the time of our audit four years

ago. Residents in affected communities and

Congress have not been receiving timely information

regarding the protectiveness of many site remedies. 

The percentage of Records of Decision (RODs)

specifying containment remedies has been increasing

since 1992 and a growing number of sites will require

five-year reviews. Therefore, it becomes increasingly

important for EPA to conduct timely reviews. To

effectively address the existing backlog of reviews,

the Agency may need to spend an additional $1

million per year for the next three years.

Nine of the 32 five-year reports we reviewed did not

include a conclusion on the protectiveness of site

remedies or did not adequately support the

conclusions made. Fifty percent of reports reviewed

which contained recommendations lacked sufficient

information for recommended corrective actions. 

Adequate and supportable conclusions, along with

complete information for implementing corrective

actions, are essential for ensuring that the public and

Congress are effectively informed of the status of site

containment remedies and the specific actions

needed to maintain or provide their protectiveness.

Of 356 required reports issued since the inception of

the five-year review program, 63 percent were issued

late. The late reports were issued an average of 17

months after required due dates. As a result, EPA

has not timely informed those in affected communities

or the Congress about the effectiveness of

containment remedies. Reviews have identified

weaknesses in containment remedies which required

corrective action. For example, the report on a

uranium mill site in New Mexico noted that little

progress had been made towards reaching the

cleanup levels in the ROD after seven years of

remedial activities and that some extraction wells

were not providing an effective hydraulic barrier for
iii Report No. 1999-P-218

preventing migration of contaminants. Consequently,

it is important to complete five-year reviews in a

timely manner so that EPA can promptly identify and,

if necessary, correct problems with site remedies.

RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response include the

backlog of five-year review reports as a weakness

under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act,

and determine, in consultation with the Office of the

Chief Financial Officer, whether a Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measure for

five-year reviews should be established.

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator

ensure that five-year review reports (1) contain a

statement of protectiveness which is adequately

supported by the report, and (2) include milestone

dates for implementing report recommendations,

designate parties responsible for performing required

corrective actions, and specify the organization

responsible for overseeing performance of corrective

actions.

We also recommend that the Assistant Administrator

ensure that communities are timely informed of the

results of five-year reviews.

AGENCY COMMENTS The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and

Emergency Response generally agreed with the

findings in the draft report. The Assistant

Administrator suggested that we add information to

indicate that while the number of overdue five-year

reviews has increased, the Agency has made

progress in reducing the percentage of overdue

reviews during the last four years from 66 percent to

30 percent of the universe of required reviews.

The Assistant Administrator disagreed with our

recommendation to establish a GPRA performance

measure at this time, but indicated that completion of

five-year reviews would be included as a target under

the Agency’s Superfund Comprehensive
iv Report No. 1999-P-218

Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) beginning in fiscal

2000.

We considered the Agency’s comments and revised

the report appropriately. We have included the full

text of the Assistant Administrator’s comments and

the OIG evaluation of the comments as Appendix 6.
v Report No. 1999-P-218

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ i

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................... 1

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

Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1

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

Scope and Methodology ................................................................................... 4

Positive Developments .................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................... 6

Backlog of Overdue Reviews Grows ...................................................................... 6

Reviews Valuable In Identifying Remedy Shortfalls .......................................... 7

Competing Priorities and Lack Of

Emphasis Contribute To Backlog ................................................................ 8

EPA Beginning Efforts To Address Backlog ..................................................... 9

Public and Congress Lack Timely 

Assurance On Remedy Protectiveness ....................................................... 10

Need To Increase Priority Of Five-Year Review Program ................................ 10

Recommendations ............................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................ 12

Five-Year Reports Should Be More Informative ...................................................... 12

Guidance Requires Sufficient Information

for Implementing Corrective Actions ............................................................. 12

Missing Or Inadequately Supported 

Statements Of Protectiveness ....................................................................... 12

Details Lacking For Implementing Corrective Actions ......................................... 14

Need to Improve Reviews by Regional Management .......................................... 15

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 15
vi Report No. 1999-P-218

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................. 17

Agency Needs To More Effectively Communicate 

Results Of Five-Year Reviews ............................................................................ 17

EPA Needs To Improve Reporting Of Results To Congress ............................... 17

Agency Does Not Typically Communicate 

Review Results to Communities ................................................................... 18

Some RPMs Effectively Communicated

Results Of Five-Year Reviews ...................................................................... 19

Need to Better Communicate Results ................................................................ 19

Recommendations ............................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................ 21

Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................... 21

Prior Audit Coverage .......................................................................................... 21

Results of Contractor’s Analysis ......................................................................... 22

APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................ 24

Sites Visited ........................................................................................................ 24

APPENDIX 3 ............................................................................................................ 25

Fiscal 1998 Five-Year Review Reports Examined .............................................. 25

APPENDIX 4 ............................................................................................................ 26

Reports With Inadequately Supported

or Missing Protectiveness Statements .......................................................... 26

APPENDIX 5 ............................................................................................................ 29

Reports Lacking Adequate Information

for Implementing Recommendations ............................................................ 29

APPENDIX 6 .......................................................................................................... 30

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation ............................................................ 30

APPENDIX 7 .......................................................................................................... 35

Distribution ........................................................................................................ 35
Report No. 1999-P-218

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 

OBJECTIVES On March 24, 1995, the Office of Inspector General

(OIG) issued a report, “Backlog Warrants Higher

Priority for Five-Year Reviews.” The report included

several recommendations for improving the

Superfund five-year review program. Agency

management agreed to implement the

recommendations or take other actions to address

the issues.

The objectives of this follow-up audit were to

determine program progress since the issuance of

our prior report, and determine if:

(1) the Agency has implemented an effective

program for reviewing sites every five years to

ensure that containment remedies remain

protective, and

(2) the public and Congress are receiving timely

information from five-year reviews about the

effectiveness of remedial actions.

BACKGROUND Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of

1986, requires that remedial actions, where

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants

remain on-site, be reviewed every five years to

assure that human health and the environment

continue to be protected. The statute also requires

that the President (delegated to the EPA

Administrator) report to the Congress a list of facilities

for which reviews are required, the results of all

reviews, and any actions taken as a result of the

reviews.
2 Report No. 1999-P-218

Within EPA, the Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (OSWER) is responsible for

implementing the five-year review program. OSWER

developed the following guidance documents:

• Structure and Components of Five-Year

Reviews (OSWER Directive 9355-7.02, May

23, 1991) provided guidance for planning and

conducting reviews, including information on

triggering dates, responsibilities and funding,

and reporting results. The guidance also

required that the Agency notify communities of

on-site five-year review activities, actions

proposed on the basis of reviews, and the

locations where five-year review reports were

to be filed.

• Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance

(OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A, July 26,

1994) provided clarifications to the 1991

guidance and a method for streamlining the

review process. The guidance included a

prioritization plan for conducting reviews when

regions could not complete all required

reviews, clarified responsibility for conducting

reviews at Federal facilities, and introduced a

streamlined review for evaluating sites where

construction is ongoing.

• Second Supplemental Five-Year Review

Guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03A, 

December 21, 1995) was issued largely in

response to the findings and recommendations

in our prior report. In addition to requiring a

conclusion on remedy protectiveness, the

guidance stated that the review report should

indicate the measures to correct any

deficiencies, who is responsible for correcting

such deficiencies, milestones for the

corrections, and who has oversight authority. 

The guidance also noted that the most

important determination which should result

from a five-year review is whether the remedy
1

The Agency’s initial five-year review guidance (Structure and Components of Five-Year

Reviews; OSWER Directive 9355.7-02; May 23, 1991) states that EPA may terminate statutory five-year

reviews when no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that

allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.

3 Report No. 1999-P-218

remains protective of human health and the

environment. The directive states that fiveyear reviews should include a signed

determination by the appropriate division

director that the remedy is or is not protective,

or would be protective if certain specified steps

were taken.

In addition to the above criteria, Agency guidance

provides information regarding the purpose of the

reviews, sites at which reviews will be conducted,

timing and termination1 of the reviews, funding, public

participation, and model report language.

Based on the legislation and Agency guidance, EPA

established two types of five-year reviews – statutory

and policy reviews. Statutory reviews were to be

conducted for sites where a post-SARA remedy will

not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. 

Policy reviews were to be conducted at sites where

the pre-SARA remedy will not allow unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure. Other designated sites, such

as long-term remedial sites and previously deleted

sites, were to be considered for policy reviews.

During our 1995 audit, we found that a substantial

number of five-year reviews had not been performed

due largely to the low priority given them by Agency

management. In August 1997, one of OSWER’s

support contractors issued a report on the five-year

review program, as part of a separate Agency effort

to evaluate the program. The contractor’s report

identified a number of issues, several of which are

similar to those identified during our current audit,

such as weaknesses in assessing remedy

protectiveness and establishing milestone dates for

corrective actions. Further information on the results

of these reports is included in Appendix 1.
4 Report No. 1999-P-218

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We conducted this audit from January 1999 through

July 1999. To accomplish our objectives, we

conducted field work in EPA Headquarters and in

Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10. We also visited

seven Superfund sites subject to five-year reviews

(see Appendix 2 for list of sites visited). We reviewed

the legislative requirements; OSWER five-year

review guidance; other relevant Superfund policies,

guidance, and reference materials; and the

documentation supporting our prior report.

We used Interactive Data Extraction and Analysis

(IDEA) software to sample and analyze information

retrieved from EPA Headquarters’ Five-Year Review

Program Implementation and Management System

(FYR-PIMS). We examined a random statistical

sample of fiscal 1998 five-year review reports with the

assistance of the OIG’s Engineering and Science

Staff to determine if they satisfied congressional and

Agency requirements (see Appendix 3). However, we

did not audit the system or validate the data, except

as it related to the cases in our sample. We also

interviewed Headquarters and regional five-year

review coordinators and Remedial Project Managers

(RPMs) responsible for overseeing or performing the

reviews. Appendix 1 presents additional information

on our scope and methodology.

We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S.

General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing

Standards (1994 Revision), issued by the Comptroller

General of the United States. We also reviewed

OSWER’s Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

reports for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The reports

did not identify any material weaknesses or

vulnerabilities related to the five-year review program. 

Except for the conditions discussed in this report, no

matters within the scope of this review warranted our

attention.
5 Report No. 1999-P-218

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS We observed several positive developments within

the five-year review program. For example:

• The latest five-year review guidance, currently

in draft, provides a mechanism for tracking the

status of recommendations and corrective

actions. The guidance includes a site

inspection checklist and a report template

which should prove useful to those performing

five-year reviews.

• Agency actions initiated before or during our

audit field work which should help address the

backlog of reviews include:

-- developing model statements of work

for reviews conducted by outside

parties;

-- using states, tribes, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE), Remedial Action

Contractors (RACs), and Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs) for

conducting many reviews; and

-- establishing post-construction groups in

some regions (e.g., Regions 5 and 7)

for more effectively addressing “end of

pipeline” issues, including five-year

reviews.

Our visits to seven sites, which basically consisted of

a visual inspection of conditions and brief discussions

with knowledgeable officials, did not identify issues of

concern.
2

In FY 1997, the percentage of Records of Decision (RODs) specifying on-site

containment/disposal was 42 percent, an increase from 22 percent in 1992.

(Source: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report, Ninth Edition, Summer 1998).

6 Report No. 1999-P-218

CHAPTER 2

BACKLOG OF OVERDUE REVIEWS GROWS

As of March 31, 1999, 143 five-year reviews were

overdue based on EPA’s Five-Year Review Program

Implementation and Management System (FYRPIMS) data. The average overdue period was 17

months. The issue of overdue reviews was

previously identified in our March 1995 report. The

present backlog of reviews is nearly three times

larger than at the time of our audit four years ago. 

Consequently, residents in affected communities and

Congress have not been receiving timely information

regarding the protectiveness of many site remedies. 

As the percentage of containment remedies

increases2, it becomes increasingly important for EPA

to conduct timely reviews. EPA may need to spend

an additional $1 million per year for the next three

years to effectively address the existing backlog of

reviews.

As can be seen in the chart on the next page, the

number of overdue reviews has increased steadily

and substantially since the issuance of our prior

report in March 1995.
7 Report No. 1999-P-218

52

75

109

135

143

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year 

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of Overdue Reviews

Number for FY95 represents overdue reviews as of 3/31/95 (time of prior report.)

Number for FY99 represents overdue reviews as of 3/31/99.

(Source: OSWER's FYR-PIMS.)

OVERDUE REVIEWS BY FISCAL YEAR

OSWER officials noted that while the number of

overdue reviews has increased, the Agency has

made progress in reducing the percentage of overdue

reviews during the last four years from 66 percent to

30 percent of the universe.

REVIEWS VALUABLE IN Many five-year reviews have identified weaknesses in

IDENTIFYING REMEDY containment remedies which required corrective

SHORTFALLS action to ensure continued protection of human

health and the environment. For example:

• The five-year report on a landfill site in

Connecticut identified concerns with a buildup

of bacteria and/or iron precipitation in the

leachate collection and transportation

pipelines which could result in the release of

leachate to piping overflows or pipe failures. 

The report also noted that new leachate seeps
3Down gradient refers to the direction that ground water flows, similar to downstream for surface

water.

8 Report No. 1999-P-218

had occurred down gradient3 of the landfill. 

These seeps needed to be sampled for

contaminants, which could pose a risk to

human health and the environment. The

report was issued about nine months late.

• The report on a uranium mill site in New

Mexico noted that little progress had been

made towards reaching the cleanup levels in

the ROD after seven years of remedial

activities and that some extraction wells were

not providing an effective hydraulic barrier for

preventing migration of contaminants. The

report was issued four years late.

• The report on a landfill site in Kentucky noted

weaknesses in several areas which needed to

be corrected, including a lack of fencing

between the site and adjacent residential

property, potential for storm water infiltration in

larger areas of subsidence, heavy vegetative

growth around well heads, and a need for

proper balancing and maintenance of the gas

collection system. The report was issued

about 4 months late.

Because five-year review reports can identify

problems that require corrective actions, it is

essential that the Agency complete five-year reviews

in a timely manner to identify and expeditiously

address weaknesses in containment remedies.

COMPETING PRIORITIES Several factors contributed to the Agency’s backlog

of

AND LACK OF EMPHASIS overdue five-year reviews. Historically, the Agency

CONTRIBUTE TO BACKLOG has placed a higher priority on completing activities

which are included as targets in the annual
4

The Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) is the mechanism used by the

Superfund program to plan, budget, track, and evaluate progress toward site cleanup. A SCAP target is

a pre-determined numerical goal that is negotiated by Headquarters and the Regions prior to the fiscal

year to ensure that designated activities will occur.

9 Report No. 1999-P-218

Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan4

relative to other program activities. Some existing

targets under SCAP include Records of Decision,

construction completions, and remedial action

completions, but none relate to five-year reviews. 

One regional five-year review coordinator said that

the only way that five-year reviews would receive the

necessary emphasis to ensure their timely completion

would be to establish them as SCAP targets. Other

factors contributing to the backlog of five-year

reviews include Agency efforts to address sites which

do not yet have remedies in place and limited staff

resources. The Agency cited many of these same

factors for not conducting timely reviews during our

previous audit in 1995.

EPA BEGINNING EFFORTS Before and during our field work, EPA initiated efforts

TO ADDRESS BACKLOG to address the backlog of overdue five-year reviews

as discussed in Chapter 1. EPA’s Five-Year Review

Coordinator indicated that the Agency planned to

complete approximately 40 to 50 percent more

reviews beyond those that are due each year for the

next three years to address the backlog. Many of the

additional reviews would be accomplished by nonEPA personnel via interagency agreements or

contracts. If the additional reviews are conducted as

planned, the current and future review workload

would be:

Fiscal Year Potential Workload to Address Backlog

 1999 105 reviews due

 2000 157 reviews (110 due plus 47 backlogged reviews)

 2001 152 reviews (104 due plus 48 backlogged reviews)

 2002 157 reviews (109 due plus 48 backlogged reviews)

EPA, however, has not yet committed the funds
10 Report No. 1999-P-218

necessary for accomplishing this work. The costs of

conducting five-year reviews through interagency

agreement or contract typically range from $20,000 to

$25,000 per site. If EPA plans to complete an

additional 48 reviews per year for the next three

years, the Agency may need to spend approximately

$1 million above the current spending level each year

to eliminate the backlog. At the conclusion of our

field work, Headquarters was still working with the

regions to identify future program needs, both

resources and priorities.

PUBLIC AND CONGRESS As a result of the large backlog of reviews, residents

LACK TIMELY ASSURANCE in affected communities have not been receiving

ON REMEDY timely assurance that remedies in place are

PROTECTIVENESS protective. In cases where remedies are not

protective, residents may be exposed to contaminants

for a longer period of time and necessary corrective

actions are delayed. In addition, Congress is not

provided information on the status of remedies in

accordance with statutorily required time frames at a

large number of Superfund sites. The Agency is

initiating efforts to begin to address the backlog of

reviews; however, additional steps are necessary to

promptly and effectively accomplish all required fiveyear reviews.

NEED TO INCREASE The increasing use of containment remedies, the

PRIORITY OF FIVE-YEAR growing backlog of five-year reviews, and the need to

REVIEW PROGRAM devote additional resources to address the backlog

warrants EPA’s formal recognition of the importance

of the five-year review program. While we recognize

that OSWER has many responsibilities, the growing

backlog and the repeat nature of many of the findings

discussed in this report point to the need to formally

recognize program weaknesses and establish the

necessary corrective actions as priority action items. 

Accordingly, we believe that OSWER should

recognize the backlog as a weakness under the

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act. Doing so

will provide a means for OSWER management to

monitor progress in addressing the backlog. In

addition, establishing a Government Performance
11 Report No. 1999-P-218

and Results Act performance measure for five-year

reviews will further demonstrate the importance of the

issue and require EPA to identify the resources

necessary for conducting timely, effective reviews.

RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response:

2-1 Include the backlog of five-year review reports

as a weakness under the Federal Managers’

Financial Integrity Act.

2-2 Determine, in consultation with the Office of

the Chief Financial Officer, whether a

Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA) measure for five-year reviews should

be established.
12 Report No. 1999-P-218

CHAPTER 3

FIVE-YEAR REPORTS SHOULD BE MORE INFORMATIVE

Twenty-eight percent of the five-year reports (9 of 32)

we reviewed did not include a conclusion on the

protectiveness of site remedies or did not adequately

support the conclusions made. Fifty percent of

reports reviewed which contained recommendations

(10 of 20) lacked sufficient information for

recommended corrective actions. Adequate and

supportable conclusions along with complete

information for implementing corrective actions are

essential for ensuring that the public and Congress

are appropriately informed of the status of site

containment remedies and the specific actions

needed to maintain their protectiveness.

GUIDANCE REQUIRES Largely in response to the findings and

SUFFICIENT INFORMATION recommendations contained in our prior audit report,

FOR IMPLEMENTING the Agency issued supplemental five-year review

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS guidance in December 1995. In addition to requiring

a conclusion on remedy protectiveness, the guidance

states that the review report should prescribe

measures to correct any deficiencies, describe who is

responsible for implementing measures to correct

such deficiencies, note milestones of performance for

such corrections, and note who has oversight

authority.

MISSING OR INADEQUATELY Twenty-eight percent of the fiscal 1998 five-year

SUPPORTED STATEMENTS reports included in our random statistical sample

OF PROTECTIVENESS either did not contain a protectiveness statement, the

statement did not comment on present site

conditions, or the statement was not effectively

supported by information in the report (see Appendix

4). When projected to the universe, 32 of the 115

fiscal 1998 five-year review reports completed may

lack adequate conclusions. Reports lacking

statements of protectiveness were an issue in our

March 1995 audit report. Some examples of
13 Report No. 1999-P-218

inadequately supported protectiveness statements

noted during the current audit follow:

• One report on a quarry site in Ohio stated that

the remedy was protective. The report also

concluded, however, that the site continued to

pose moderate on-site chemical contamination

risks, physical risks were present, groundwater

consumption carried unacceptable risk in

residential use, and the existing perimeter

fence no longer prevented trespassers from

entering the property. The report indicated

that there were many signs of extensive

recreational activity within the site boundaries.

• A report on a manufacturing site in Minnesota

concluded that the site remedy was protective. 

The report also noted, however, that

concentrations of contaminants were stabilized

above the Minnesota Health Risk Limit, which

is a relevant and applicable requirement

(ARAR) for the site. This contradicted the

statement of protectiveness, since the

concentrations were not likely to diminish to

the point where the risk would be deemed

acceptable by State standards.

• Another report on a municipal drinking water

well site in the State of Washington concluded

that the remedy selected for the site remained

protective, but that the current remedy would

never meet the cleanup goals in the ROD. 

The statement appeared to be selfcontradictory. EPA planned to reevaluate the

remedy during the next year to determine what

modifications were needed.

Reports which lack, or inadequately support,

conclusions on the protectiveness of remedies hinder

the Agency from accurately informing the public and

the Congress regarding actual site conditions.

DETAILS LACKING FOR The recommendations in 10 of 20 five-year reports
14 Report No. 1999-P-218

IMPLEMENTING which contained recommendations lacked milestone

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS dates, did not specify who was to perform each

recommendation, or did not indicate who had

oversight authority for implementing the

recommendations (see Appendix 5). Projecting the

results of our sample, we believe that about 50

percent of fiscal 1998 reports which contain

recommendations lack sufficient detail for corrective

actions. These issues were previously identified in

our March 1995 report. During the current audit we

found that:

• A report on a landfill site in Louisiana

recommended monitoring the site for methane

gas migration and that an alternative sampling

method be considered for more effectively

measuring methane concentrations. No

milestones were included in the report,

however, for accomplishing this work.

• A report on a disposal site in Michigan

recommended continued operation and

maintenance of the clay cap, re-vegetated

area, leachate extraction system, and the

groundwater and slurry wall monitoring system. 

The report, however, did not clearly specify

who was to take these actions.

• The report on a quarry site in Ohio included

several recommendations for maintaining the

protectiveness of the remedy, such as (1)

restoring a perimeter fence to functional

condition, (2) reposting warning signs, (3)

conducting monthly inspections of the fence to

detect and repair vandalism, and (4)

performing groundwater monitoring until the

site can be delisted. The report, however, did

not clearly indicate the party responsible for

overseeing the implementation of

recommendations.
15 Report No. 1999-P-218

NEED TO IMPROVE Regional management is not thoroughly reviewing all

REVIEWS BY REGIONAL reports before approving them to identify

MANAGEMENT weaknesses or problems with the statements of

protectiveness and information needed for effectively

describing corrective actions, including milestone

dates, parties responsible for corrective actions, and

parties responsible for oversight. Five-year review

reports are typically prepared by, or conducted under

contract or interagency agreement for, the regional

RPMs. Before issuance, the reports are reviewed by

the appropriate regional section chief, branch chief,

and division director. In some regions, the regional

five-year review coordinator also reviews the reports

before they are submitted to the division director. 

Under the 1995 supplemental guidance referred to

above, the relevant EPA division director, as the

approval official, is ultimately responsible for ensuring

that the five-year review reports contain a statement

of protectiveness and information describing

corrective actions.

We believe it is essential that the appropriate

regional division director more closely examine

reports before approval to ensure that (1) information

on the protectiveness of site remedies is accurate

and supportable, and (2) sufficient information

including the accomplishment of corrective actions is

included. Doing so will enable EPA to better inform

the public and Congress about the status of site

containment remedies and the specific actions

required to maintain or provide protectiveness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response ensure that

five-year review reports:

3-1 contain a statement of protectiveness which is

adequately supported by the report, and

3-2 include milestone dates for implementing

report recommendations, designate parties
16 Report No. 1999-P-218

responsible for performing required corrective

actions, and specify the organization

responsible for overseeing performance of

corrective actions.
17 Report No. 1999-P-218

CHAPTER 4

AGENCY NEEDS TO MORE EFFECTIVELY

COMMUNICATE RESULTS OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

Of 356 required reports issued since the inception of

the five-year review program, 225, or 63 percent,

were issued late. The late reviews were issued an

average of 17 months late. As a result, the Agency

has not timely informed those in affected communities

or the Congress about the effectiveness of

containment remedies. Moreover, when reviews are

not issued according to legislatively mandated time

frames, the Agency is technically in violation of

CERCLA 121(c).

This issue regarding timeliness of five-year review

reporting will become more critical in the future,

since, as noted in Chapter 2, the percentage of RODs

specifying on-site containment remedies has been

increasing since 1992. As a result, an increasing

number of sites will require five-year reviews. In

addition, reviews have identified weaknesses in

containment remedies which required corrective

action to ensure continued protection of human

health and the environment. Thus, it is important to

complete the reviews in a timely manner so that EPA

can promptly identify and, if necessary, correct

problems with site remedies.

EPA NEEDS TO IMPROVE The Agency reports the results of five-year reviews

REPORTING OF RESULTS through the Superfund Annual Report to Congress

TO CONGRESS (SARC). As of the end of our field work, the 1995,

1996, and 1997 SARCs had not been distributed. 

The SARCs have not generally been timely and may

be discontinued after the FY 1998 report is issued. 

Untimely issuance of the SARC reports has been

largely due to the volume of information included in

the reports on many aspects of the Superfund

program and the challenges in obtaining and

consolidating the data. Moreover, the Agency’s

SARC reports for FY 1995-1997 presented the
18 Report No. 1999-P-218

number of reviews completed, not a list of required

reviews as mandated by CERCLA 121(c). If the

SARCs are discontinued, the results of five-year

reviews will need to be provided to the Congress

through another Agency reporting mechanism. 

AGENCY DOES NOT OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, Structure and

TYPICALLY COMMUNICATE Components of Five-Year Reviews, issued in May

REVIEW RESULTS TO 1991, requires the Agency to notify communities of

COMMUNITIES on-site five-year review activities, actions proposed

on the basis of the review, and the location where the

review report is to be filed.

Many RPMs we interviewed believed that the fiveyear reviews were a useful way to keep communities

informed of the status of site remedies. In actual

practice, however, there was generally a lack of

communication with local communities on the results

of the reviews (26 of 29 RPMs interviewed). For

example, one RPM we interviewed in Region 5 said

that he did not contact the local community and

believed that there was no requirement to do so. 

Another RPM in Region 4 indicated that he was

unaware of any Agency requirement to notify the

public. RPMs from various regions said that they did

not communicate with communities regarding fiveyear reviews due to a low level of community interest

or because remedies are still being built and there is

an active EPA or state presence at the site.

Residents new to communities may be unaware of

the existence of nearby Superfund sites or the need

for five-year reviews. Other longer-term residents

may still be interested in the status of site

containment remedies, but may be unaware of

planned or completed five-year reviews. For

example, during a meeting with local community

members regarding a landfill site in northern Florida,

residents were unfamiliar with the five-year review

process and were unaware of an upcoming review

planned for the site.

In addition to the requirements of the statute and
19 Report No. 1999-P-218

Agency guidance, the EPA Administrator emphasizes

free and open communication with the public and

community right-to-know regarding environmental

issues. The Administrator also stresses consistent

treatment of community residents living near

Superfund sites.

Some RPMs Effectively As an example of a desirable practice, one RPM in

Communicated Results of Region 6 who conducted a five-year review of the

Five-Year Reviews United Nuclear Corporation site located in Gallup,

NM, placed a notice in the local newspaper and

arranged for radio announcements inviting the public

to a meeting where clean-up activities at the site

would be discussed. The newspaper notice

mentioned that a five-year review was completed

earlier in the year and had resulted in several

recommendations on the clean-up strategy. EPA,

state, and other representatives planned to be

available to discuss site issues. EPA also distributed

a fact sheet which summarized information from the

five-year review, including specific report

recommendations. The fact sheet also included the

names and telephone numbers of EPA and state

contacts for the site as well as the location of the site

repositories.

As another example, an RPM in Region 4 who

reviewed the Dubose Oil Products site located in

Cantonment, FL, distributed a fact sheet to local

residents regarding the planned review, its purpose,

what it entailed, and how the report would be made

available to the community. The RPM also

interviewed community members by telephone. She

provided a copy of the fact sheet and five-year review

report to the local site repository.

NEED TO BETTER The purpose of the five-year review report -- an

COMMUNICATE RESULTS evaluation of the effectiveness of the containment

remedy -- indicates its importance and the need for

timely communication of results. As more and more

sites require five-year reviews, this responsibility

becomes increasingly more important. Five-year

review reports have identified weaknesses in some
20 Report No. 1999-P-218

site containment remedies which required corrective

actions; consequently, timely issuance of reports is

critical for prompt identification and correction of

problems. Late reporting could result in unnecessary

prolonged exposure to site contaminants for nearby

residents. Finally, once reports are issued, RPMs

should timely communicate the results to affected

communities. One relatively low cost option is to

publish a notice of results in local newspapers,

describing the results, how the report can be

obtained, and a contact point for questions.

The Agency needs to improve the timeliness of

reporting results to the Congress and in doing so

should add to the information already provided:

• a list of required reviews per CERCLA 121(c);

and

• a list of the number of overdue reviews and the

average length of time such reviews are

overdue.

Given that our findings in this report are largely

repeat findings, providing such information will enable

the Agency to more fully portray the status of the fiveyear review program.

RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response:

4-1 Improve the timeliness of communicating fiveyear review report information to the Congress.

4-2 Include the following information when

annually reporting to the Congress – a list of

required reviews; the number of overdue

reviews; and average length of time the

reviews are overdue.

4-3 Ensure that communities are timely informed of

the results of five-year reviews.
21 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 1

SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this audit from January 1999 through July 1999. To accomplish

our objectives, we conducted field work in EPA Headquarters and in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, and 10. We also visited seven Superfund sites subject to five-year reviews

(see Appendix 2 for list of sites visited). We reviewed the legislative requirements;

OSWER five-year review guidance; other relevant Superfund policies, guidance, and

reference materials; and the documentation supporting our prior report.

We used Interactive Data Extraction and Analysis (IDEA) software to sample

and analyze information retrieved from EPA Headquarters’ Five-Year Review Program

Implementation and Management System (FYR-PIMS). We examined a random

statistical sample of 32 five-year review reports (see Appendix 3) from a universe of

111 fiscal 1998 reports with the assistance of the OIG’s Engineering and Science Staff

to determine if they satisfied congressional and Agency requirements. However, we

did not audit the system or validate the data, except as it related to the cases in our

sample. We interviewed Headquarters and regional five-year review coordinators and

Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) responsible for overseeing or performing the

reviews. We also met with state and responsible party representatives during our site

visits to discuss the status of containment remedies.

We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office’s

Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision), issued by the Comptroller General of

the United States. We also reviewed OSWER’s Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity

Act reports for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The reports did not identify any material

weaknesses or vulnerabilities related to the five-year review program. Except for the

conditions discussed in this report, no matters within the scope of this review warranted

our attention.

Prior Audit Coverage

The OIG conducted an audit of the five-year review program during fiscal 1994.

In our report (Backlog Warrants Higher Priority For Five-Year Reviews, March 24, 1995,

audit report no. 5100229), we noted that a substantial number of reviews had not been

performed due largely to the low priority given them by EPA management.
5EPA introduced a Type Ia review in its Supplement Five-Year Review Guidance dated July 26,

1994 to streamline the process at sites where remedial action is ongoing and to reduce resource needs

for such reviews. The Type Ia review emphasizes only relevant protectiveness factors, analyzed at a

standard of review appropriate for sites where response is ongoing.

22 Report No. 1999-P-218

We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and

Emergency Response:

(1) increase the priority for performing the reviews by making the five-year reviews a

Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) target and direct

OSWER to amend its guidance to include (a) final determinations in five-year

review reports, (b) available milestones for implementing report

recommendations, (c) a description of who has oversight authority, and (d) a

description of who would perform each recommendation, and

(2) clarify guidance on the use of Type “Ia” five-year reviews5 and ensure that the

guidance includes a requirement for sufficient information, including technical

data, to support the conclusions. Specific items that should be added are: a

review of pertinent operations and maintenance costs; a description of pertinent

site visits; and a description of what has happened to the site since the ROD.

Agency officials disagreed with our recommendation to make five-year reviews a

SCAP target, choosing to retain the reviews as a SCAP measure. In addition, the

Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, issued a memorandum to the

regions listing sites that required reviews and requesting regions to set timetables for

completing the reviews. OSWER agreed to amend their guidance to include adequate

information for implementing report recommendations and to reemphasize prior

guidance requiring a clear determination of the protectiveness of remedies.

Regarding our second recommendation, OSWER agreed to supplement its

guidance to clarify “ongoing presence” at a site and recency of visits for Type Ia

reviews. OSWER agreed that sufficient data should support conclusions and that

reviews should include a description of what has happened at the site since the ROD,

but contended that existing guidance already discussed this issue.

Results of Contractor’s Analysis

In 1997, OSWER tasked one of its contractors to provide pertinent information

on the Agency’s five-year review program and more broadly identify current issues in

conducting reviews and reporting review information. To accomplish this, the

contractor reviewed Agency five-year review requirements, evaluated and compared

information from 100 five-year review reports (from varying fiscal years), and examined

trends in specified areas. The contractor reported that a high number of reports did not
23 Report No. 1999-P-218

contain all required information required by Agency guidance. The report noted noncompliance in several areas:

• determining whether the remedy is protective of human health and the

environment and explicitly stating this determination;

• obtaining the proper EPA signature;

• making report recommendations; and

• establishing milestones.

OSWER used the results of the contractor’s analysis to draft revised five-year

review guidance.
24 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 2

SITES VISITED

Region Site Location EPA ID No.

 1 Beacon Heights Landfill Beacon Falls, CT CTD072122062

Old Springfield Landfill Springfield, VT VTD000860239

 3 Heleva Landfill No. Whitehall, PA PAD980537716

Moyers Landfill Eagleville, PA PAD980508766

 4 Pickettville Road Landfill Jacksonville, FL FLD980556351

Sherwood Medical Industries Deland. FL FLD043861392

Zellwood Groundwater Site Zellwood, FL FLD049985302
25 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 3

FISCAL 1998 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORTS EXAMINED

(selected by random statistical sample)

Site Name EPA ID Number

 (1) Nutting Truck and Caster Co. MND006154017

 (2) Smith’s Farm Brooks KYD097267413

 (3) Dubose Oil Products FLD000833368

 (4) Sealand Restoration NYD980535181

 (5) Mason County Landfill MID980794465

 (6) John Deere (Dubuque Works) IAD005269527

 (7) Yaworski Waste Lagoon CTD009774969

 (8) Onalaska Municipal Landfill WID980821656

 (9) Gulf Coast Vacuum Services LAD980750137

(10) Cleve Reber LAD980501456

(11) Piccillo Farm RID980579056

(12) Pollution Abatement Services NYD000511659

(13) Queen City Farms WAD980511745

(14) Old Springfield Landfill VTD000860239

(15) Flowood Site MSD980710941

(16) Republic Steel Quarry OHD980903447

(17) United Nuclear Corp. NMD030443303

(18) Commencement Bay (So. Tacoma) WAD980726301

(19) Tabernacle Drum Dump NJD980761357

(20) Tri-City Industrial Disposal KYD981028350

(21) Clothier Disposal NYD000511576

(22) Liquid Disposal Inc. MID067340711

(23) Aidex Corp. IAD042581256

(24) Beacon Heights Landfill CTD072122062

(25) Western Processing Company WAD009487513

(26) Lee’s Lane Landfill KYD980557052

(27) Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. TXD089793046

(28) AT & SF (Clovis) NMD043158591

(29) Mottolo Pig Farm NHD980503361

(30) Vestal Water Supply 1-1 NYD980763767

(31) Suffern Village Well Field NYD980780878

(32) Distler Farm KYD980601975
26 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 4

REPORTS WITH INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED OR MISSING

PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

(1) Nutting Truck and Caster Company, Faribault, MN (EPA ID: MND006154017)

The report stated that contaminant concentrations were stabilized above the Minnesota

Health Risk Limit. This contradicts the statement of protectiveness, since the 

concentrations are not likely to diminish to a point where the risk would be deemed

acceptable by state standards.

(2) Onalaska Municipal Landfill, Onalaska, WI (EPA ID: WID980821656)

The report lacked specific information to support the conclusions made. Sampling

information was presented in terms of “certain metals, wells, and one or two VOCs.”

The report should be more specific (e.g., Which metals? Which VOCs? Where are the

wells? What are levels exceeded?). The report stated that water level data showed

that wetlands were not impacted, but the state’s extent of draw-down could not be

accurately estimated without turning the pumps off. The report needed to include

information on what water level data were used and how it was interpreted to support

the conclusions made.

(3) Piccillo Farm, Coventry, RI (EPA ID: RID980579056)

The statement of protectiveness in the report is misleading. The containment remedy

is still in the design phase and only exists on paper. The remedy cannot be deemed a

success or a failure until it has been implemented.

(4) Old Springfield Landfill, Springfield, VT (EPA ID: VTD000860239)

The report did not include a statement of protectiveness regarding the containment

remedy.

(5) Commencement Bay (South Tacoma Channel),Tacoma, WA

(EPA ID: WAD980726301)

The statement of protectiveness concludes that the remedy selected for the site

remains protective, but that the current remedy will not meet the cleanup goals in the 

ROD. The statement is self-contradictory. EPA planned to reevaluate the remedy
27 Report No. 1999-P-218

during the next year to determine what modifications were needed.

(6) Beacon Heights Landfill, Beacon Falls, CT (EPA ID: CTD072122062)

The report did not include sufficient information to justify the statement that the remedy

remains protective. The report noted that the leachate collection system may have

been compromised in two areas: (1) buildup of bacteria and/or iron precipitation,

causing backup in the leachate flow; and (2) new leachate seeps down gradient of the

landfill. It is unclear from the report whether the buildups had already occurred or that

the reviewer feared they would occur. The report did not clarify whether the new

leachate seeps were being captured by the leachate collection system. At a minimum,

the discussion should have been specific enough to make these points clear.

(7) Lee’s Lane Landfill, Louisville, KY (EPA ID: KYD980557052)

The statement of protectiveness was very weakly supported. The statement indicated

that action should be taken on only one of eight recommendations regarding the

remedy that were included in the body of the report. It appears that the other seven

recommendations were ignored when developing the protectiveness statement.

(8) Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1, Vestal, NY (EPA ID: NYD980763767)

The statement of protectiveness is not properly written and is misleading. The 1995

guidance states:

“The most important determination which should result from the Five-Year Review is

whether the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment....The

determination should be that: (1) the remedy is protective; (2) it is not protective; or, (3)

it would be protective if certain measures were taken.”

The statement in this report reads: “Based on monitoring results and site inspections,

EPA has determined the selected remedy will be protective of human health and the 

environment and will allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.” The

requirement of the guidance is to report the present condition, not predict the future

condition unless the report specifies conditions under which the remedy will become

protective. It seems probable from the information in the report that the remedy is

proceeding on schedule and, so far, is successful in reducing contaminant 

concentrations as planned in the RI/FS. This progress, however, is not reflected in the

statement.
28 Report No. 1999-P-218

(9) Republic Steel Quarry Site, Elyria, OH (EPA ID: OHD980903447)

The report stated that the remedy was protective. The report also concluded, however,

that the site continued to pose moderate on-site chemical contamination risks, physical

risks were present, groundwater consumption carried unacceptable risk in residential

use, and the existing perimeter fence no longer prevented trespassers from entering

the property. The report indicated that there were many signs of extensive recreational

activity within the site boundaries.
29 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 5

REPORTS LACKING ADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR

IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Name Location

Milestones not

Included for

implementing

recommendations

No clear indication

who is to perform

each

recommendation

No clear indication

who has oversight

authority for

corrective actions

Nutting Truck & Caster Faribault, MN X

Onalaska Landfill Onalaska, WI X

Cleve Reber Sorrento, LA X X X

Piccillo Farm Coventry, RI X X X

Republic Steel Quarry Elyria, OH X X

United Nuclear Corp. McKinley County, NM X X X

Liquid Disposal Shelby Township, MI X X

Beacon Hgts. Landfill Beacon Falls, CT X

Western Processing Kent, WA X

Lee’s Lane Landfill Louisville, KY X
30 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 6

AGENCY RESPONSE AND OIG EVALUATION 

September 27, 1999

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Follow-up Audit of Superfund Five-Year Review Program Draft Report

99P-000272

FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr. /s/ 

Assistant Administrator 

TO: Michael Simmons

Deputy Assistant Inspector General For Internal Audits

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the OIG Draft “Follow-up Audit of the

Superfund Five-Year Review Program.” We also appreciate the meetings with your

office to discuss your findings prior to issuance of the draft report.

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

recommendations, a summary of our recent accomplishments and planned corrective

actions, and an action plan for implementing the recommendations.

Findings Discussion

We are in general agreement with the findings of the draft report. Our comments are

as follows:

PAGE COMMENT

5 Please add information to reflect number of reviews overdue as a

percentage of the total due and overdue. While 30% or 53 of 176 reviews

were completed at the time of the FY 95 Audit, a total of 66% or 275 of

418 reviews were completed by the end of FY 98. The percentage of

completed reports more accurately reflects the progress in eliminating

overdue reports while the program is expanding.
31 Report No. 1999-P-218

7 We recommend removing the FY 2002 Potential Workload Estimate or

substituting a number five percent greater than FY 01. The number

currently shown for FY 02 is greater than we actually expect because our

tracking system contains early trigger dates (such as a ROD signature

date) for reports that are actually due later.

Recommendations and Milestones Discussion

2-1 Include the backlog of five-year review reports as a weakness under the

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act.

OSWER agrees with this recommendation and will declare Five-Year Reviews as an

Agency level weakness under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act. A

corrective action strategy and proposed milestone dates will be included in OSWER’s

1999 Annual Assurance Letter. Some of our recent accomplishments and planned

corrective actions include:

1) Five-year reviews have been designated a Superfund Comprehensive

Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) target starting in FY2000. OERR will target

completion of all statutory reviews due in the fiscal year, plus at least one-third

of the backlog of statutory reviews, in order to eliminate the backlog of statutory

reviews by the end of FY2002.

2) In FY1999, OERR issued draft Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance

which provides clarification and updated guidance on five-year reviews. 

Regions and the OIG reviewed the draft, and comments are currently being

addressed. The revised draft will be redistributed during the first quarter of

FY2000, and final guidance will be issued during third quarter FY2000.

3) Five-Year Review training will be scheduled in each Region immediately

following the release of the Consolidated Five-Year Review Guidance to quickly

increase the quality of five-year review reports.

4) OERR has finalized a Model Statement of Work to assist the Regions in

obtaining assistance with five-year reviews using Response Action Contracts. A

similar Work Authorization Form has been prepared to allow Regions to obtain

assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

 5) In FY2000, OERR will ensure that resources necessary to complete targeted

five-year reviews are made available. Five-year reviews are “ongoing” activities,

and funding is a high priority.
32 Report No. 1999-P-218

6) Community Involvement fact sheets in the Five-year process have been

developed and are in draft form. These will be piloted at select sites during first

quarter FY2000, and final fact sheets will be issued concurrently with the

guidance.

7) In FY2000, a new report will be developed to report to Congress the progress

under the Five-year review program.

2-2 Establish a Government Performance and Results Act performance

measure for five-year reviews. 

We disagree with this recommendation based on our recent accomplishments and

planned corrective actions and request the following alternate recommendation:

2-2 Establish a Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)

target for five-year reviews.

We have established the following milestones to implement our Recommendation 2-2.

DATE MILESTONE

Completed Issue Annual Work Planning memorandum requesting that Regions

provide targets for five-year reviews in FY 2000.

9/30/99 Provide planning information to Regions for October 1999 work planning

meetings.

10/31/99 Hold Regional work planning meetings, and establish SCAP targets for

FY2000.

11/30/99 Make model Statements of Work available to Regions, along with

availability of funding to contract out reviews.

Ongoing Monitor progress toward achieving targets.

3-1 Ensure that five-year review reports contain a statement of protectiveness

which is adequately supported by the report.

3-2 Include milestone dates for implementing report recommendations,

designate parties responsible for performing required corrective actions,

and specify the organization responsible for overseeing performance of

corrective actions.
33 Report No. 1999-P-218

We agree with these recommendations and have identified the following milestones to

achieve them.

DATE MILESTONE

10/30/99 Provide Regional five-year review coordinators a copy of the final OIG

audit report, highlighting these recommendations.

5/30/99 Conduct Regional training on procedures and requirements for

conducting and documenting five-year reviews.

4/30/00 Issue Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance to the Regions.

Ongoing Review completed five-year review reports and provide feedback to

Regions.

OERR is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the milestones identified

above.

4-1 Improve the timeliness of communicating five-year review report

information to the Congress.

4-2 Include the following information when annually reporting to the Congress

-- a list of required reviews; the number of overdue reviews; and average

length of time the reviews are overdue.

We agree with these recommendations. We are developing a new report which will be

used to report to Congress on progress of the Five-Year Review Program, the

protectiveness of remedies and status of recommendations which affect protectiveness. 

The report will also include a list of required reviews, the number of overdue reviews,

and average length of time the reviews are overdue, as requested in recommendation

4-2.

4-3 Ensure that communities are timely informed of the results of five-year

reviews.

We agree with this recommendation and have identified the following milestones to

achieve them.
34 Report No. 1999-P-218

DATE MILESTONE

12/31/99 Pilot draft community involvement fact sheet for sites with five-year

reviews scheduled for fall 1999.

3/30/00 Issue community involvement fact sheet for use by Regions.

4/30/00 Issue Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance to the Regions that

describes community involvement requirements.

OSWER appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report. If you have any

questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Carrie Hawkins at 260-0137. 

 

cc: Mike Shapiro

Dev Barnes

Johnsie Webster

Barbara Braddock

Carol Bass

Tracy Hopkins

Rafael Gonzalez

Carrie Hawkins

Fran Tafer

Bill Samuel

OIG EVALUATION

As requested, we added language to the report to reflect the number of five-year

reviews overdue as a percentage of the total universe of required reviews. We also

modified the potential workload estimate for fiscal 2002 to indicate a five percent

increase in the five-year review workload from fiscal 2001.

We modified our recommendation regarding the establishment of a GPRA measure for

five-year reviews, requesting that the Assistant Administrator determine, in consultation

with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, whether a Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) measure for five-year reviews should be established.

We concur with the Assistant Administrator’s decision to declare the backlog of fiveyear reviews as an Agency level weakness under FMFIA and to include a corrective

action strategy in OSWER’s 1999 Annual Assurance Letter. We appreciate the

inclusion of milestone dates for all planned corrective actions.
35 Report No. 1999-P-218

APPENDIX 7

DISTRIBUTION

Office of Inspector General

Inspector General

Assistant Inspector General for Audit

Deputy Inspector General for Internal Audits

Divisional Inspectors General

EPA Headquarters Offices

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (SE360)

Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5201G)

Comptroller (2731)

Agency Followup Official (M2710)

Agency Followup Coordinator (2724)

OSWER Audit Liaison (5103)

Director, Regions 1/9 Accelerated Response Center (5204G)

Director, Planning Staff, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, OCFO (2723)

Headquarters Five-Year Review Coordinator (5204G)

Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and State/Local Relations (1501)

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (1301)

Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Public Affairs (1701)

EPA Regional Offices

Regional Administrators

Regional Public Affairs Offices

Regional Five-Year Review Coordinators