type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL \n\n\n\n\n Catalyst for Improving the Environment\n\n\nEvaluation Report\n\n\n\n\n EPA Needs to Track\n Compliance with Superfund\n Cleanup Requirements\n Report No. 08-P-0141\n\n April 28, 2008\n\x0cReport Contributors: Carolyn Copper\n Jessica Knight\n Steven Weber\n Gerry Snyder\n Andrew Creath\n Michael Owen\n\n\n\n\nAbbreviations\n\nCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act\nCERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability\n Information System\nEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\nGAO Government Accountability Office\nNPL National Priorities List\nOECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nSNC Substantial Non-Compliance\n\x0c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency \t 08-P-0141\n April 28, 2008\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n At a Glance\n\n Catalyst for Improving the Environment\n\n\nWhy We Did This Review EPA Needs to Track Compliance with\nWe conducted this review to Superfund Cleanup Requirements\nevaluate whether the U.S.\nEnvironmental Protection What We Found\nAgency (EPA) has resolved\nviolations to Superfund According to EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Superfund information system, there were 3,397 active\nenforcement instruments Superfund enforcement instruments to ensure cleanups at National Priorities List\nconsistent with its guidance, sites as of September 30, 2007. Yet, EPA does not nationally compile or track\npractice, and authorities.\n data on substantial non-compliance (SNC) with the terms or requirements of these\n instruments. Therefore, we were not able to fully determine whether the regions\nBackground\n have resolved Superfund instrument violations consistent with criteria and\n authorities. In 2000, though, EPA recognized it needed to improve in this area. It\nThe Comprehensive\n issued an internal report recommending that the regions improve their data on the\nEnvironmental Response,\n compliance status of Superfund enforcement instruments and responses to non-\nCompensation, and Liability\n compliance. However, EPA has not implemented this recommendation.\nAct provides EPA with\n Consequently, the Agency lacks the internal controls necessary to monitor\nmultiple enforcement\n compliance with Superfund instruments nationally.\nauthorities to compel\nresponsible parties to conduct\n In a limited review of EPA regions\xe2\x80\x99 enforcement records, we found that two\nand pay for Superfund\n regions\xe2\x80\x99 enforcement actions, in 12 instances of SNC, were consistent with EPA\ncleanups. Under its authority,\n guidance and authorities. While the regions took appropriate actions to address\nEPA can implement\n these 12 violations, Region 5 had not established necessary and enforceable\nSuperfund enforcement\n requirements to address contamination from the Muskego Landfill Site, in\ninstruments to ensure that\n Waukesha County, Wisconsin.\nresponsible parties address\nenvironmental contamination\nat Superfund sites. EPA is What We Recommend\nresponsible for enforcing the\nterms specified in Superfund We recommend that EPA track and monitor substantial non-compliance by using\nenforcement instruments, and modifying, as appropriate, the existing Superfund information system. We\nincluding taking action when also recommend that EPA establish enforceable response actions to address\nviolations occur. contamination from the Muskego Landfill Site. EPA agreed with our\n recommendations and proposed responsive actions to address them.\nFor further information,\ncontact our Office of\nCongressional and Public\nLiaison at (202) 566-2391.\n\nTo view the full report,\nclick on the following link:\nwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/\n20080428-08-P-0141.pdf\n\x0c UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460\n\n\n OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n April 28, 2008\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nSUBJECT:\t EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements\n Report No. 08-P-0141\n\n\nFROM:\t Wade T. Najjum\n Assistant Inspector General\n Office of Program Evaluation\n\nTO:\t Granta Nakayama\n Assistant Administrator\n Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance\n\n Mary Gade \n\n Region 5 Administrator \n\n\n\nThis is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nof the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe\nthe problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. The OIG\nresponded to the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s draft report comments by making changes to the report and providing\nresponses to EPA, as appropriate. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not\nnecessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will\nbe made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures.\n\nThe estimated cost of this report \xe2\x80\x93 calculated by multiplying the project\xe2\x80\x99s staff days by the\napplicable daily billing rates in effect at the time \xe2\x80\x93 is $326,997.\n\nAction Required\n\nIn accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this\nreport within 90 calendar days. Your response should include a corrective action plan for agreed\nupon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this\nreport to the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov.oig.\n\x0cIf you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper,\nDirector for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste Issues, at (202) 566-0829 or\ncopper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Mike Owen, Project Manager, at (206) 553-2542 or\nowen.michael@epa.gov.\n\x0c EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements\n\n\n\n Table of Contents \n\n Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1\n\n\n Background ................................................................................................................... 1\n\n\n Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................... 1\n\n\n Noteworthy Achievements ........................................................................................... 2\n\n\n EPA Has a Large Universe of Superfund Instruments ............................................... 2\n\n\n EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Process Provides Flexibility ....................................................... 3\n\n\n EPA Does Not Nationally Track Superfund Non-Compliance ................................... 4\n\n\n OECA and Region 9 Do Not Track Violations ..................................................... 4\n\n\n Lack of Data Prevents OECA from Determining Compliance .............................. 4\n\n\n Regions\xe2\x80\x99 Responses to Violations Were Consistent\n\n with Agency Enforcement Guidance, Policy, and Authorities................................... 5\n\n\n Regions Took Appropriate Actions to Address Violations .................................... 5\n\n\n Region 5 Needs to Improve Enforcement Activities at the \n\n Muskego Landfill Site ........................................................................................... 5\n\n\n Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 7\n\n\n Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ...................................................................... 8\n\n\n Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits................................. 9\n\n\n\n\nAppendices\n A Details on Scope and Methodology..................................................................... 10 \n\n\n B Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation..................................... 12 \n\n\n C Distribution ............................................................................................................ 20 \n\n\x0cPurpose\n\nWe sought to determine whether violations to Superfund instruments have been resolved\nconsistent with Agency guidance, practice, and authorities. We addressed the following\nquestions:\n\n 1.\t What is the universe of Superfund instruments and how many of these instruments have\n previous or current compliance violations?\n 2.\t What are the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s guidance, policy, and authorities for enforcing Superfund \n\n instruments? \n\n 3.\t How does the Agency track Superfund instrument violations and actions taken to address\n the violations?\n 4.\t Have responses to and resolution of violations of Superfund instruments been consistent\n with Agency enforcement guidance, policy, and authorities?\n\nBackground\n\nIn 1980, Congress established the Superfund program under the Comprehensive Environmental\nResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to clean up the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s worst hazardous\nwaste sites. Through CERCLA, EPA has the authority to require that responsible parties conduct\nsite cleanups. The highest priority sites are designated as Superfund National Priority List (NPL)\nsites. Responsible parties who agree to clean up Superfund sites can reach settlement\nagreements with EPA. Settlement agreements include specific work requirements for the site.\nThey also include provisions for resolving disputes and assessing penalties for non-compliance.\nTo document settlements, EPA uses administrative orders on consent or judicial consent decrees.\nEPA also has the authority to issue unilateral administrative orders if the responsible party\nrefuses to enter into a settlement or refuses to perform work.\n\nEPA is responsible for enforcing the terms specified in settlement agreements and unilateral\nadministrative orders (Superfund instruments). If a responsible party does not comply with the\nterms of a Superfund instrument, EPA can take actions to bring them into compliance. These\noptions typically range from informal negotiations to referrals to Department of Justice.\n\nEPA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is responsible for managing\nthe enforcement aspects of the Superfund program. OECA\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities include developing\nand implementing national Superfund enforcement policy. OECA also provides national\ndirection and legal support to EPA\xe2\x80\x99s 10 regional offices. EPA\xe2\x80\x99s regional offices have primary\nresponsibility for getting responsible parties to conduct and pay for Superfund cleanups.\n\nScope and Methodology\n\nWe conducted this review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the review to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.\nWe believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and\n\n\n 1\n\n\x0cconclusions based upon our objectives. We performed our review from July 2006 to May 2007.\nWe evaluated violations meeting an OECA definition for substantial non-compliance (SNC). In\na 2000 report, OECA defined SNC as a violation that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 exacerbates a hazardous substance release or threatened release of a hazardous substance;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 significantly differs from the terms of the Superfund instrument;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 represents a pattern of recalcitrance or chronic non-compliance; and/or\n \xe2\x80\xa2 is deemed substantial by the region for other reasons.\n\nThe Agency does not maintain national data on violations of these Superfund instruments. To\nassess regional responses to compliance violations, we reviewed all instances of SNC identified\nsince January 2001 by Regions 5 and 9. We excluded from our review violations related to\nresponsible parties\xe2\x80\x99 obligations to pay EPA for Superfund costs. We also excluded violations\ninvolving Federal facility Superfund sites.\n\nAppendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology.\n\nNoteworthy Achievements\nIn November 1998, OECA initiated an internal effort to assess responsible party compliance with\nactive Superfund instruments. The review evaluated whether responsible parties were meeting\ntheir Superfund commitments in a timely and satisfactorily manner. The study included\nobtaining and reviewing Superfund instrument information from all 10 EPA regional offices.\nThe Agency released its report on the study in September 2000. The study found that\nresponsible parties complied with more than 90 percent of active Superfund instruments. The\nreport also provided several recommendations to improve enforcing Superfund instruments and\nimprove instrument and compliance data.\n\nEPA Has a Large Universe of Superfund Instruments\n\nEPA had 3,397 active Superfund instruments establishing cleanup obligations for sites on the\nNPL as of September 30, 2007. We identified the number of active Superfund instruments from\ndata provided by the Agency through its Comprehensive Environmental Response,\nCompensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS, or Superfund information system).1\nThe number of active instruments excludes enforcement instruments for sites not on the NPL and\ninstruments involving responsible party payment obligations. As shown in Figure 1, the number\nof active instruments also varies among the regions.\n\nWe were unable to determine, in a comprehensive manner, how many of these Superfund\ninstruments have previous or current compliance violations. EPA does not compile or track this\ninformation.\n\n1\n The number of instruments may include enforcement instruments that have been completed and fully complied\nwith, but have not yet been closed out of CERCLIS. According to an OECA official, OECA is working with the\nregions to close out enforcement actions where all response actions have been completed and all payment\nobligations have been satisfied.\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0c Figure 1 - Total Number of Active Superfund Instruments for NPL Sites by Region.\n\n 700 648\n 574\n 600\n 493\n 500\n 400 353\n 290 285\n 300 231 202\n 189\n 200 132\n 100\n 0\n Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region\n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10\n\n Source: OIG analysis of EPA\xe2\x80\x99s CERCLIS data.\n\n\nEPA\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Process Provides Flexibility\nSections 104, 106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA provide EPA legal authority to enforce the cleanup\nof NPL sites and recover cleanup costs from responsible parties. The Agency has the authority\nto:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Perform cleanups at a site and later recover the costs from responsible parties.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Enter into settlement agreements with responsible parties to clean up a site or pay for a\n cleanup conducted by EPA.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Order responsible parties to perform a cleanup at a site, with the option of imposing\n penalties if they fail to comply with the order.\n\nEPA has established its process for addressing non-compliance with Superfund instruments in\nguidance documents. This includes Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party\nRemedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies and the Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy. In\naddition, EPA has summarized processes for addressing non-compliance in the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nSuperfund enforcement training manual.\n\nEPA guidance communicates general steps that may be taken to respond to violations. The\nguidance does not establish standard responses by violation type. The guidance also does not\nspecify time requirements for addressing and resolving a violation. According to guidance\ndocuments and OECA managers, the Superfund enforcement process is flexible and depends on\nseveral factors, including: (1) the responsible party\xe2\x80\x99s compliance history, (2) site conditions, (3)\nduration of non-compliance, and (4) severity of non-compliance.\n\nThe regions have first line responsibility to enforce the requirements and terms in Superfund\ninstruments. Regions 5 and 9 assign a remedial project manager and attorney to each NPL site.\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0cThe remedial project manager and site attorney are responsible for ensuring that the responsible\nparty complies with the terms of the Superfund instruments. Our review of EPA\xe2\x80\x99s guidance and\ninterviews of managers and staff from the two regions disclosed that the regions\xe2\x80\x99 responses to\nviolations typically include the following steps:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Attempt to resolve the dispute informally.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Issue a formal notice of deficiency.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t For an administrative order on consent or consent decree, invoke formal dispute \n\n resolution procedures, as outlined in the instrument. \n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Take enforcement actions. These actions may include: (a) penalties, (b) EPA takeover of\n site work, and (c) referral to the Department of Justice.\n\nEPA Does Not Nationally Track Superfund Non-Compliance\nThe Agency does not track SNC with Superfund instruments nationally. As a result, EPA does\nnot have the data to measure how well, or whether, it is addressing and resolving SNC in the\nSuperfund program. This is a weakness in internal controls for assuring compliance with\nSuperfund requirements.\n\nOECA and Region 9 Do Not Track Violations\n\nAlthough OECA is responsible for managing Superfund enforcement, it does not track SNC with\nSuperfund instruments. The Agency also does not require the regions to track SNC with\nSuperfund instruments. However, one of the two regions we reviewed centrally tracks violations\nof these instruments for sites in their region. Region 5 centrally tracks all violations using a\ncompliance field in CERCLIS. This field identifies the status of Superfund instruments using\ncompliance designations. These designations include: (1) In Compliance, (2) In Violation \xe2\x80\x93 No\nAction Planned, (3) In Violation \xe2\x80\x93 Action Planned, or (4) In Violation \xe2\x80\x93 Action Taken.\nAccording to a Region 5 manager, the Region uses this field to monitor the compliance status of\nits Superfund instruments. Region 9, however, does not centrally track compliance violations or\nresponses to violations. Instead, the remedial project manager responsible for managing the site\ngenerally tracks each violation and its resolution on a site-specific basis. As a result, Region 9\nhas fewer controls to track violations and their resolution than Region 5.\n\nLack of Data Prevents OECA from Determining Compliance\n\nDue to the lack of a national system, OECA has limited information for assessing SNC with\nSuperfund instruments. OECA recognized and attempted to address this weakness in an internal\n2000 report. However, EPA did not implement the report\xe2\x80\x99s recommendation that regions\nimprove the compliance data they report in CERCLIS, because OECA agreed to alternative\nactions. According to an OECA senior attorney, the regions were opposed to implementing the\n2000 internal report recommendation. The regions agreed, as an alternative, to monitor non-\ncompliance themselves.\n\nImplementing the recommendation could improve national data and internal controls over\ntracking SNC issues and their resolution. However, to improve the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s visibility over\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0cviolations, OECA will need to restrict using the compliance field in CERCLIS to issues that meet\nOECA\xe2\x80\x99s definition for SNC. Now, the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s definition of non-compliance for this field is\nvery general and includes minor violations of Superfund instruments. The Agency should also\nadd date fields in CERCLIS to provide data for EPA managers to measure the time taken to\nresolve violations. CERCLIS does not include fields that identify non-compliance and return to\ncompliance dates. OECA managers informed us in September 2007 that OECA is working with\nthe regions to address this issue. OECA and the regions are working to establish a national\ntracking system for SNC using CERCLIS. They said that OECA was taking this action in\nresponse to our evaluation work.\n\nRegions\xe2\x80\x99 Responses to Violations Were Consistent with Agency\nEnforcement Guidance, Policy, and Authorities\nBecause no national data exists for instances of Superfund SNC, we could not fully evaluate the\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s responses to and resolution of SNC with Superfund instruments. However, we found\nthat the responses of Regions 5 and 9, addressing 12 instances of SNC, were consistent with\nAgency guidance, policy, and authorities. While these Regions took appropriate enforcement\nactions for these 12 violations, Region 5 had not established enforceable response requirements\nfor groundwater contamination migrating from the Muskego Landfill Site. This issue does not\nviolate existing Superfund instruments for the site. Rather, it represents a new issue where the\nregion has not established a Superfund instrument to address additional contamination from the\nsite.\n\nRegions Took Appropriate Actions to Address Violations\n\nThe 12 instances of SNC occurred at 11 sites in Region 5 and 9 where responsible parties\ngenerally failed to perform portions of the required work or did not provide adequate site access.\nThe responsible parties typically did not comply with the Superfund instruments because they\neither disputed liability or had technical issues with the remedy design. The regions usually tried\nto resolve the issues informally through meetings and letters. If these efforts were not\nsuccessful, the regions issued a formal notice of deficiency. In six of the cases, negotiations\nfollowed the notices of deficiencies. The regions reached settlements with the responsible\nparties resolving the violations for the six cases. In the more serious cases, the regions invoked\npenalties as part of their enforcement actions. For example, at a site in Region 9, the responsible\nparty continually refused to perform the required work even though the Region issued multiple\nnotices of deficiency and an additional unilateral administrative order. Because of the multiple\nviolations, the Region required the responsible party to pay a penalty of $500,000. The Region\nalso required the responsible party to conduct a $1 million supplemental environmental project\nand pay EPA $6.7 million for past costs.\n\nRegion 5 Needs to Improve Enforcement Activities at the Muskego Landfill Site\n\nRegion 5 has not established requirements for the party responsible for cleaning up the Muskego\nLandfill site, in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, to address contaminated groundwater that has\nmigrated from the site. As a result, the responsible party has not submitted requested\ninformation and has made little progress towards addressing the contamination.\n\n\n 5\n\n\x0cIn late 1997 and early 1998, the State of Wisconsin detected contamination from Muskego\nLandfill in several off-site residential wells. According to Region 5 managers and staff, this off-\nsite contamination does not pose an immediate threat to human health. The threat has been\naddressed, they said, because the residences with contaminated wells have been connected to\nmunicipal water. However, Region 5 staff said that they have not been able to obtain\ndocumentation from the responsible party verifying that the residences have been provided\nmunicipal water. According to the staff, the Region has requested this information on multiple\noccasions, but the responsible party has not complied with the requests. Consequently, the\nRegion could not, and has not, assured that residences with contaminated wells have been\nprovided a potable water source.\n\nSince at least January 1999, the Region requested, in meetings and with letters, that the\nresponsible party investigate the groundwater contamination, but delays have taken years. For\nexample, Region 5 requested in a January 1999 letter that the responsible party submit a\nworkplan for characterizing the off-site contamination within 30 days. Despite this request and\nsubsequent followup activities, the Region was unable to obtain an acceptable workplan from the\nresponsible party until August 2005 -- more than 6 years later. Region 5 staff said that the\nresponsible party submitted several draft versions of the workplan that the Region found to be\ndeficient and they requested revisions. Because of the long delay with completing the workplan,\nthe Region did not receive an acceptable groundwater characterization report from the\nresponsible party until December 2006. The Region has reviewed the report and is identifying\nsampling requirements necessary to complete a supplemental remedial investigation of the off-\nsite groundwater contamination. Our review of data in the report identified that the groundwater\ncontamination has migrated towards a municipal water supply well (Municipal Well #7) and\nseveral additional residential wells. These wells may be at risk of becoming contaminated in the\nfuture.\n\nAccording to a Region 5 manager and staff, data and funding issues for the site limited the\nRegion\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement options that are outlined by EPA guidance. The manager and staff\nthought that the Region did not have enough data on the contamination source to support the case\nfor issuing an additional unilateral administrative order to establish response requirements for the\noff-site contamination. The staff also said that the Region did not take over the response because\nit would have been difficult to convince EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\n(OSWER) to approve funding for the work. The staff explained that the responsible party for the\nsite has the ability to pay for the work and OSWER usually reserves funding for sites without\nviable responsible parties that have significant problems. Therefore, the Region did not request\nfunding from OSWER. Because of these issues, the Region\xe2\x80\x99s manager and staff felt that\npursuing negotiations with the responsible party was the best approach for getting the off-site\ncontamination cleaned up. The Region began these negotiations with the responsible party in\n1999.\n\nRegion 5\xe2\x80\x99s continuing negotiations with the responsible party has achieved very little progress\ntowards addressing the off-site contamination and ensuring that human health and the\nenvironment are protected. The Region must implement better controls to ensure protection to\nhuman health and the environment, such as using a Superfund instrument that provides specific\nresponse actions and milestones to address the off-site contamination issues.\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0cIn September 2007, Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s Superfund Director notified us that the Region was in a much\nstronger position to aggressively enforce compliance, because it has obtained additional data on\nthe off-site contamination. The Director also informed us that the Region has developed a plan\nfor establishing enforceable response actions and milestones for addressing the off-site\ncontamination issues. With regard to contaminated residential wells, the Director informed us\nthat the Region has been sampling residential wells over the past few years. The Director also\ndisclosed that the Region has recently begun an additional round of sampling to further verify\nand confirm that all residential drinking water wells remain safe to use. The Region\xe2\x80\x99s reported\nactions are needed steps towards verifying contamination in the residential wells near the site.\nHowever, to fully assure that residents with contaminated wells have safe drinking water, the\nRegion will need to verify that these residences have been provided a potable water source.\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA:\n\n 1.\t Request that the regions input compliance status data for Superfund instruments in\n CERCLIS. Limit the CERCLIS input for the \xe2\x80\x9cIn Violation\xe2\x80\x9d designations to issues that\n meet OECA\xe2\x80\x99s definition for SNC.\n\n 2.\t Add data fields in CERCLIS to capture dates when SNC with Superfund instruments was\n identified and resolved. Request that the regions input this data into CERCLIS.\n\n 3.\t Annually review the CERCLIS compliance data to monitor Agency status and progress in\n managing SNC with Superfund instruments.\n\n 4.\t Establish parameters or metrics that indicate an acceptable range of performance or\n circumstances requiring explanation.\n\n 5.\t Monitor Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s progress in establishing an enforceable Superfund instrument for the\n Muskego Landfill Site that provides specific response actions and milestones to address\n the off-site contamination issues. If Region 5 is unable to finalize this Superfund\n instrument, take appropriate actions to ensure that enforceable response actions and\n milestones to address the contamination issues are established.\n\nWe recommend that the Administrator for Region 5:\n\n 6.\t Verify that residences with groundwater wells contaminated from the Muskego Landfill\n Site either have been connected to municipal water or provided with some other potable\n water source. Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s verification should include a review of appropriate sampling\n data to ensure that all residential wells contaminated by the site have been identified. The\n Region should also visit the residences with contaminated wells to confirm that the\n residents have been provided with potable water.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\x0cAgency Comments and OIG Evaluation\nThe OIG received comments on the draft report from OECA and Region 5 and we made changes\nto the report where appropriate. Appendix B provides the full text of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s comments\nand the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\nOECA agreed with all recommendations for their action (Recommendations 1 through 5) and\ndescribed corrective actions that are in process or planned. However, OECA will need to\nprovide specific milestones for completing Recommendations 3 and 4 in its response to this\nreport. For example, OECA will need to include a specific completion date for establishing a\nbaseline for the status of compliance with Superfund enforcement instruments in its response for\nRecommendation 3. OECA will also need to provide a specific completion date for establishing\na metric for acceptable performance by the Regions in its response for Recommendation 4.\nOECA said in its response that the evaluation and recommendations will enhance its ability to\ntrack and evaluate compliance with Superfund enforcement instruments on a national basis.\nUntil OECA implements corrective actions for Recommendations 1 through 5 they will remain\nopen in OIG tracking systems.\n\nRegion 5 agreed with the recommendation for its action (Recommendation 6) and described\ngenerally responsive corrective actions that are in process or planned. However, Region 5 will\nneed to provide details on its corrective actions and a milestone for completing the actions in its\nresponse to this report. For example, the Region\xe2\x80\x99s response should describe how it has or plans\nto verify that all residences with contaminated wells have been connected to municipal water or\nprovided some other potable water source. The Region\xe2\x80\x99s response will also need to include a\nspecific date for completing this corrective action. In its response, Region 5 commented that\nEPA is pursuing a new Superfund Administrative Order requiring work to address the off-site\ncontamination from the Muskego Landfill Site as suggested by the draft report. Until Region 5\nimplements corrective actions for Recommendation 6, it will remain open in OIG tracking\nsystems.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\n\x0c Status of Recommendations and\n Potential Monetary Benefits\n\n POTENTIAL MONETARY\n RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s)\n\n Planned\n Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To\n No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount\n\n 1 7\t Request that the regions input compliance status O Assistant Administrator 03/31/09\n data for Superfund instruments in CERCLIS. Limit for OECA\n the CERCLIS input for the \xe2\x80\x9cIn Violation\xe2\x80\x9d\n designations to issues that meet OECA\xe2\x80\x99s definition\n for SNC.\n\n 2 7\t Add data fields in CERCLIS to capture dates when O Assistant Administrator 03/31/09\n SNC with Superfund instruments was identified and for OECA\n resolved. Request that the regions input this data\n into CERCLIS.\n\n 3 7\t Annually review the CERCLIS compliance data to O Assistant Administrator\n\n monitor Agency status and progress in managing for OECA \n\n SNC with Superfund instruments.\n\n 4 7\t Establish parameters or metrics that indicate an O Assistant Administrator\n\n acceptable range of performance or circumstances for OECA \n\n requiring explanation.\n\n 5 7\t Monitor Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s progress in establishing an O Assistant Administrator 06/30/08\n enforceable Superfund instrument for the Muskego for OECA\n Landfill Site that provides specific response actions\n and milestones to address the off-site\n contamination issues. If Region 5 is unable to\n finalize this Superfund instrument, take appropriate\n actions to ensure that enforceable response\n actions and milestones to address the\n contamination issues are established.\n\n 6 7\t Verify that residences with groundwater wells O Administrator for Region 5\n contaminated from the Muskego Landfill Site either\n have been connected to municipal water or\n provided with some other potable water source.\n Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s verification should include a review of\n appropriate sampling data to ensure that all\n residential wells contaminated by the site have\n been identified. The Region should also visit the\n residences with contaminated wells to confirm that\n the residents have been provided with potable\n water.\n\n\n\n\n1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending\n C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed\n U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n Details on Scope and Methodology\n\nWe conducted this review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the review to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.\nAt the request of an OECA manager, our work was officially suspended from August to October\n2006, to accommodate a heavy workload the regions experienced at the end of the fiscal year.\nOur scope generally covered EPA\xe2\x80\x99s activities for enforcing Superfund instruments from January\n2001 through September 2006. To gain an understanding of EPA\xe2\x80\x99s process for enforcing\nSuperfund instruments, we interviewed managers and staff from OSWER, OECA, Region 5, and\nRegion 9. We reviewed CERCLA and EPA guidance documents. We also reviewed other\nrecords applicable to EPA\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement process and activities for Superfund instruments.\n\nWe reviewed CERCLIS information provided by OECA. The CERCLIS data identified the\nuniverse of active administrative orders on consent, consent decrees, and unilateral\nadministrative orders (i.e., Superfund instruments) for work obligations for sites on the NPL as\nof September 30, 2007. The Agency does not maintain national data on violating these\ninstruments. Therefore, we were not able to identify the universe of violations for these\ninstruments. We conducted limited testing of the Superfund instrument universe to verify the\naccuracy of the data. We compared the site name, Superfund instrument type, and instrument\ndates in CERCLIS with supporting records for 12 sites identified by Regions 5 and 9 with\ncompliance issues during the period from January 2001 through September 2006. Our testing\ndid not identify any major discrepancies with site names, instrument types, or instrument dates\nbetween the CERCLIS data and supporting records.\n\nThe Agency does not maintain national data on violations of these instruments. To assess\nregional responses to compliance violations, we reviewed violation information and supporting\nresponse and resolution records we obtained from Regions 5 and 9. We also interviewed\nremedial project managers and site attorneys from the two Regions. We conducted these\ninterviews to gain a complete understanding of the violations and the Regions\xe2\x80\x99 responses\naddressing the violations. We selected these two Regions primarily to provide geographical\ncoverage of the central and western United States. These Regions were also selected because\nthey had the highest number of Superfund instruments, respective to geographical location. Our\nreview focused on SNC with Superfund instruments that were active as of September 30, 2006.\n\nWe reviewed instances of SNC reported to us by Regions 5 and 9. We reviewed all instances of\nSNC identified between January 2001 and September 2006 by Region 5 and 9. We excluded\nfrom our review violations related to responsible parties\xe2\x80\x99 obligations to pay EPA for Superfund\ncosts. We also excluded violations involving Federal facility Superfund sites. For Region 5, we\nevaluated 5 of the 13 reported violations. Eight of the violations reported by Region 5 were\nexcluded from review because they involved responsible party payment obligations, were\nincorrectly reported as a violation, involved a Federal facility site, or were overturned by a\n\n\n 10 \n\n\x0cUnited States court. We evaluated seven out of the nine violations reported by Region 9. Two\nof the violations reported by Region 9 were excluded from review because they involved\nresponsible party payment obligation issues. Our evaluation included reviews of relevant site\ndocuments and Agency correspondence. We also interviewed remedial project managers and\nsite attorneys.\n\nTo assess internal controls, we evaluated the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s procedures and records for tracking and\naddressing SNC with Superfund instruments. We found that the Agency needs to implement a\nnational tracking system for SNC with Superfund instruments to provide assurance that EPA is\ncomplying with applicable laws and regulations as communicated in legally binding Superfund\ninstruments.\n\nThe Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled EPA Should Do More To\nEnsure That Liable Parties Meet Their Cleanup Obligations (GAO-05-658, August 2005). This\nreport found that EPA was not aggressively enforcing financial assurance requirements in\ncleanup orders and agreements. The report made multiple recommendations to the Agency to\nimprove implementation, management, and enforcement of these requirements. The Agency was\ntaking corrective actions in response to this report at the time of our review. As a result, we did\nnot conduct follow-up work on GAO\xe2\x80\x99s findings and recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 11 \n\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nAgency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation\n OECA Response to Draft Report\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDATE: March 21, 2008\n\nSUBJECT: \t Response to \xe2\x80\x9cDraft Evaluation Report: EPA Cannot Determine the Extent of\n Substantial Non-Compliance in Superfund Cleanups; Assignment No. 2006- 01400\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nFROM: Catherine R. McCabe /s/\n Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator\n\nTO: Carolyn Copper\n Director for Program Evaluation\n Hazardous Waste Issues\n Office of Inspector General\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject draft report on tracking compliance\nwith Superfund enforcement instruments. In this memorandum, we will be responding to\nRecommendations 1 through 5. Region 5 will be responding under separate cover to\nRecommendation 6.\n\n The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) believes there was an\nopen dialogue on this subject and the evaluation and recommendations will enhance OECA\xe2\x80\x99s\nability to track and evaluate compliance with Superfund enforcement instruments on a national\nlevel. We would like your office to reconsider the title of this report because we do not believe it\naccurately reflects the report\xe2\x80\x99s findings. We suggest the report\xe2\x80\x99s title be changed to \xe2\x80\x9cEPA Needs\nto Track Compliance with Superfund Enforcement Agreements Nationally.\xe2\x80\x9d We are concerned\nthat the report title may, in itself, generate unnecessary inquiries, and we would prefer to focus\non implementing the OIG's recommendations.\n\n OIG Response\n\n We changed the report title to EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup\n Requirements.\n\n Before addressing the specific recommendations, I would like to clarify a point made in the\ndraft report. In the summary, \xe2\x80\x9cAt a Glance,\xe2\x80\x9d (What We Found), and on pages 2 and 3, \xe2\x80\x9cEPA Has a\nLarge Universe of Superfund Instruments,\xe2\x80\x9d it is noted that \xe2\x80\x9cEPA had 3,397 active Superfund\ninstruments for cleanup obligations for sites on the NPL as of September 30, 2007.\xe2\x80\x9d It should be\n\n\n 12 \n\n\x0cmade clear that this is the number of active Superfund enforcement instruments in CERCLIS and\ndoes not include enforcement instruments for non-NPL actions nor does it include enforcement\ninstruments for cost recovery. That number may also include enforcement instruments that have\nbeen completed and fully complied with but have not yet been closed out in CERCLIS. We are\ncurrently working with the Regions to close out enforcement actions where all response actions have\nbeen completed and all cost recovery obligations satisfied. Once this effort is complete, we will be\nable to determine accurately the total number of active enforcement actions for response (NPL and\nnon-NPL) and cost recovery.\n\n OIG Response\n\n We revised the statement in the \xe2\x80\x9cAt a Glance\xe2\x80\x9d to read as follows: \xe2\x80\x9cAccording to EPA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Superfund information system, there were 3,397 active Superfund enforcement instruments to ensure\n cleanups at National Priorities List sites as of September 30, 2007.\xe2\x80\x9d We also clarified the content of\n universe of Superfund instruments discussed on pages 2 and 3 by adding the following statements:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe identified the number of active Superfund instruments from data provided by the Agency\n through its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability\n Information System (CERCLIS or Superfund information system). The number of active\n instruments excludes enforcement instruments for sites not on the NPL and instruments\n involving responsible party payment obligations.\xe2\x80\x9d The following footnote was also added on\n page 2: \xe2\x80\x9cThe number of instruments may include enforcement instruments that have been\n completed and fully complied with, but have not yet been closed out of CERCLIS.\n According to an OECA official, OECA is working with the regions to close out enforcement\n actions where all response actions have been completed and all payment obligations have\n been satisfied.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\nWith respect to Recommendations 1 through 5, OECA provides the following:\n\nRecommendation 1 - Request that the regions input compliance status data for Superfund\n[enforcement] instruments in CERCLIS. Limit CERCLIS \xe2\x80\x9cIn Violation\xe2\x80\x9d designations to issues that\nmeet OECA\xe2\x80\x99s definition of SNC [Substantial Noncompliance].\n\nOECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation and has already established two\nworkgroups to address this issue. The first is comprised of Regional attorneys, enforcement\nspecialists and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and has been charged with defining \xe2\x80\x9cSubstantial\nNoncompliance\xe2\x80\x9d (SNC) with respect to Superfund enforcement instruments. In its FY 2000 report,\nEPA established a SNC definition, but it was not fully vetted with the Regions and only addressed\nSNC with respect to enforcement agreements for response actions. The current workgroup will be\naddressing SNC for removal and remedial response actions as well as compliance with cost recovery\nactions. We anticipate that this workgroup will complete its work by the first quarter of FY 2009.\nWe will then issue a guidance outlining the SNC definition, the types of actions for which\ncompliance monitoring will be required in CERCLIS, and the frequency with which that data should\nbe reviewed and updated. This workgroup has already had two conference calls and will convene\nbi-weekly until it completes its tasks.\n\n\n\n 13 \n\n\x0cIn addition, we have formed a workgroup comprised of Regional CERCLIS Information\nManagement Coordinators to identify the system enhancements that will be required to allow\nRegions to track and update compliance information in CERCLIS effectively and efficiently. First,\nthe workgroup will identify changes to the current CERCLIS compliance screens that are necessary\nto implement the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations. The workgroup will also identify user\nrequirements to make updating the CERCLIS information more efficient. Though the current\nconfiguration was designed for decentralized data entry directly by RPMs, a number of Regions use\ncentralized data entry for compliance tracking, including Region 5, and the current system is\ncumbersome to update. OECA will work with the Regions and OSWER, the owners of the\nCERCLIS data base, to implement these enhancements. The initial enhancements should be\nimplemented in the second quarter of FY 2009. Until a full requirements analysis is completed,\nhowever, we cannot determine a date for completing the second set of CERCLIS changes to enhance\ndata entry efficiency. This workgroup has also had two conference calls and will convene bi-weekly\nuntil it has completed its tasks.\n\n OIG Response\n\n OECA\xe2\x80\x99s corrective actions in process meet the intent of our recommendation. The\n recommendation is open with agreed-to actions pending.\n\n\nRecommendation 2 - Add data fields in CERCLIS to capture the dates when SNC with Superfund\n[enforcement] instruments was identified and resolved. Request that the regions input this data into\nCERCLIS.\n\nOECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation and will, in modifying CERCLIS, allow\nRegions and Headquarters to identify when there is substantial non-compliance with an enforcement\naction and when the parties returned to compliance. This will be implemented consistent with the\ninitial CERCLIS enhancements by the second quarter of FY 2009.\n\n OIG Response\n\n OECA\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action in process meets the intent of our recommendation. The\n recommendation is open with agreed-to actions pending.\n\nRecommendation 3 - Annually review CERCLIS compliance data to monitor Agency status and\nprogress in managing SNC with Superfund [enforcement] instruments.\n\nOECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation. Once SNC is defined and initial\nCERCLIS enhancements are in place, we will pull the CERCLIS data to establish a baseline for the\nstatus of compliance with Superfund enforcement instruments. OECA anticipates this will occur late\nin FY 2009, and we will repeat the evaluation annually thereafter.\n\n\n\n\n 14 \n\n\x0c OIG Response\n\n OECA\xe2\x80\x99s planned corrective action meets the intent of our recommendation. However, OECA\n will need to provide a more specific milestone date for completing the corrective action in its\n response to the final report. The recommendation is open with agreed-to actions pending.\n\n\nRecommendation 4 - Establish parameters or metrics that indicate an acceptable range of\nperformance or circumstances requiring explanation.\n\nOECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation. Once we establish a baseline of\ncompliance status in FY 2009, we will establish a metric for the range of acceptable performance\nand a threshold for when Regions will be required to substantiate why the SNC threshold was\nexceeded. This would likely be implemented in FY 2010, once a baseline has been established and\nthe data evaluated.\n\n\n OIG Response\n\n OECA\xe2\x80\x99s planned corrective action meets the intent of our recommendation. However, OECA\n will need to provide a more specific milestone date for completing the corrective action in its\n response to the final report. The recommendation is open with agreed-to actions pending.\n\nRecommendation 5 - Monitor Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s progress in establishing an enforceable Superfund\nenforcement instrument for the Muskego Landfill Sites that provides specific response actions to\naddress off site contamination. If Region 5 is unable to finalize this Superfund [enforcement]\ninstrument, take appropriate actions to ensure that enforceable response action and milestones to\naddress the contamination issues are established.\n\nOECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation. It is our understanding that Region 5\nhas developed an enforcement instrument that meets the requirements outlined by your office to\naddress the off site contamination at the Muskego Landfill Site. We expect that the Regions actions\nwill address the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s concerns and will be completed by the end of the 3rd quarter of FY 2008. If\nthe Region is unsuccessful, we will work with them to ensure that an enforcement instrument is in\nplace as expeditiously as possible.\n\n OIG Response\n\n OECA\xe2\x80\x99s planned corrective actions meet the intent of our recommendation. However, OECA\n will need to provide a more specific milestone date for completing the corrective actions in its\n response to the final report. The recommendation is open with agreed-to actions pending.\n\n\n Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. Should you have any\nquestions or concerns regarding this response, please contact OECA\xe2\x80\x99s Audit Liaison, Gwendolyn\nSpriggs on 202-564-2439.\n\n\n 15\n\x0ccc: M. Owen (OIG)\n M. Mulkey (OSRE)\n E. Gilberg (OSRE)\n M. Schneider (OAP)\n G. Spriggs (OAP)\n M. Gade (Region 5)\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Region 5 Response to Draft Report\n\n R-19J\n\n DATE: March 19, 2008\n\nSUBJECT: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Response to the Office of Inspector\n General\xe2\x80\x99s Discussion Draft Findings for the Report: \xe2\x80\x9cEPA Cannot Determine the Extent\n of Substantial Non-Compliance in Superfund Cleanups\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n FROM: Mary A. Gade /s/ Walter Kovalick for\n Regional Administrator\n\n TO: Carolyn Copper\n Director for Program Evaluation\n Office of Program Evaluation\n Office of Inspector General\n\nThank you for providing the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 the opportunity to\ncomment on the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG\xe2\x80\x99s) Draft Evaluation Report \xe2\x80\x9cEPA Cannot Determine\nthe Extent of Substantial Non-Compliance in Superfund Cleanups,\xe2\x80\x9d Assignment No. 2006-01400, dated\nFebruary 21, 2008. I am responding to issues raised in the report relative to the Muskego Sanitary\nLandfill Site (Site) and, specifically, Recommendation #6.\n\nResponse to Discussion:\n\nEPA is aware of the issues discussed in the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s draft report and has articulated its concerns about the\noff-site contamination in past Five-Year Review evaluations. EPA will also be amending the Record of\nDecision to modify the required remedial action to ensure that the remedy remains protective of human\nhealth and the environment.\n\n\n OIG Response\n\n We agree that the Region\xe2\x80\x99s 1999 and 2004 five-year review reports articulated concerns about the\n off-site contamination and included recommendations associated with those concerns. However, as\n discussed in the draft report, the Region had not established requirements for the responsible party\n to address the contaminated groundwater that has migrated from the site at the time of our review.\n The Region\xe2\x80\x99s plan to amend the Record of Decision is a needed step towards establishing a remedy\n for the off-site contamination that provides long-term protection to human health and the\n environment.\n\n\nIn the past, EPA approached the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to undertake the additional work\nunder the existing 1995 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO). Those PRPs performed the remedial\nactions required under that UAO to address on-site groundwater contamination. The PRPs denied that\nthe additional work was required under the UAO, but agreed to conduct further sampling and\ninvestigation. Off-site contamination was not identified in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study\n(RI/FS) and was not discovered until after the on-site groundwater remedy was constructed. In addition,\nEPA believed all potentially impacted residents were connected to a public drinking water source.\n\nIn December 2007, EPA received a revised Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Report from the PRPs,\nwhich included a listing of all private well locations and all municipal drinking water hookups in the study\narea as requested by EPA. With the revised Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Report, EPA has a much\n\n\n\n 17 \n\n\x0cbetter understanding of the contamination plume, the complex hydrogeology in the area, and the potential\nvulnerability of residential and municipal wells in the area.\n\nEPA is pursuing a new Superfund Administrative Order requiring additional work including specific\nresponse actions and milestones to address off-site contamination as the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s draft report suggests.\nSpecifically, EPA will issue a notice letter inviting the PRPs to negotiate a Consent Order to perform work\nidentified in a detailed scope of work. If the PRPs will not enter an agreement within 45 days of receipt of\nthe notice letter, EPA will consider other options including, but not limited to, funding the final phase of the\noff-site groundwater investigation. Whether under an enforcement lead or fund-lead action, the final\nnecessary sampling will be performed in 2008. EPA will then have a complete supplemental RI for the\noff-site groundwater contamination and will identify and evaluate remedial alternatives for off-site\ngroundwater contamination at the Site before the close of 2008.\n\n OIG Response\n\n The Region\xe2\x80\x99s recent response actions that are in process and actions planned should assist EPA with\n obtaining a complete remedial investigation of the off-site groundwater contamination. These actions\n should also assist the Region with assuring that a remedy is selected and implemented that provides\n long-term protection to human health and the environment.\n\nResponse to Recommendation #6\n\nRecommendation #6 stated:\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cVerify that residences with groundwater wells contaminated from the Muskego Landfill Site either have\nbeen connected to municipal water or provided some other potable water source. The Region\xe2\x80\x99s\nverification should include a review of appropriate sampling data to ensure that all residential wells\ncontaminated by the site have been identified. The Region should also visit the residences with\ncontaminated wells to confirm that the residents have been provided potable water.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nEPA\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\n\nBased upon recent information provided to and developed by EPA, we now have an inventory of all wells\nin the area that are used for potable purposes and that may be vulnerable to contamination. EPA is\ncurrently verifying all municipal well hook-ups. EPA has also required the PRPs to increase the sampling\nfrequency of the municipal and residential wells. Depending on the location and potential vulnerability of\nthe well, some wells are sampled more frequently than others (e.g., monthly, quarterly and annually).\n\nThe draft report also correctly notes that contamination has migrated toward Muskego municipal water\nsupply well #7. EPA has required the PRPs to monitor that well and wells in its vicinity to make sure that\nwell #7 continues to be a safe water supply for the City of Muskego. In addition to monthly sampling of\nwell #7 and surrounding monitoring wells, EPA has required additional pumping tests to improve our\nunderstanding of the local hydrogeology and modeling. This will allow EPA to develop a supplemental\nfeasibility study to assure the protection of well #7 and residential wells in the area.\n\nWe believe that our ongoing sampling efforts have assured the safety of all residential wells, and we have\nrecently initiated another round of drinking water well sampling to further verify and confirm that all\nresidential drinking water wells remain safe for use. If a well is contaminated above safe levels, bottled\nwater will be provided by the PRPs. Municipal water lines may also be extended, as they have been in\nthe past, until a long-term solution can be found. These actions, along with EPA\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement and\nresponse strategy, will ensure a solution to these complex problems. Additional remedial investigations\nwill support a supplemental Feasibility Study, which will identify and evaluate alternatives to assure long-\nterm protection of any off-site residents and of the municipal well. EPA Region 5 will also keep our Office\nof Site Remediation Enforcement apprised of our progress and timetables.\n\n\n\n\n 18 \n\n\x0c OIG Response\n\n Region 5\xe2\x80\x99s corrective actions are in process and plan to meet the intent of our recommendation. In its\n response to the final report, the Region will need to provide more specific details describing how it has\n verified or plans to verify that all residences with contaminated wells have been connected to\n municipal water or some other potable water source. The Region will also need to provide a\n milestone, or milestones, for completing the corrective actions. The recommendation is open with\n agreed-to actions pending.\n\n\nAgain, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you have any additional\nquestions, please feel free to contact Sheri L. Bianchin, Remedial Project Manager, at (312) 886-4745 or\nThomas Krueger, Associate Regional Counsel, at (312) 886-0562.\n\ncc:\t Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Director, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement \n\n Marcia Mulkey, Director, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement \n\n Michael Owen, OIG, Region 10 \n\n Jessica Knight, OIG, Region 9 \n\n Elliot Gilberg, Deputy Director, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement \n\n Patricia Mott, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement \n\n Melissa Gibbons, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement\n\n Bruce Pumphrey, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement \n\n Mike Northridge, Office of Site Remediation & Enforcement \n\n Eric Levy, Region 5 Audit Coordinator \n\n Thomas Krueger, Region 5 \n\n Larry Kyte, Region 5 \n\n Leverett Nelson, Region 5 \n\n Richard C. Karl, Region 5 \n\n Douglas Ballotti, Region 5 \n\n Thomas Short, Region 5 \n\n Donald Bruce, Region 5 \n\n Jatinder Singh, Region 5 \n\n Sheri L. Bianchin, Region 5 \n\n\n\n\n\n 19 \n\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n Distribution\n\nOffice of the Administrator\nAssistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance\nAssistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nPrincipal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance\nPrincipal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nDirector, Office of Regional Operations\nRegional Administrator, Region 5\nRegional Administrator, Region 9\nOffice of General Counsel\nAssociate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations\nAssociate Administrator for Public Affairs\nAgency Followup Official (the CFO)\nAgency Followup Coordinator\nAudit Followup Coordinator, Office of the Administrator\nAudit Followup Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance\nAudit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nAudit Followup Coordinator, Region 5\nAudit Followup Coordinator, Region 9\nDeputy Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n 20 \n\n\x0c"


text:
Bouwwerkzaamheden kunnen schade veroorzaken aan naburige panden. Werkzaamheden zoals heien, het slaan van damwandplaten, verlaging van de grondwaterstand of het weggraven van grond kunnen er voor zorgen dat muren van naburige panden scheuren of dat funderingen wegzakken.
 In een ander artikel is reeds besproken dat een aannemer er alles aan dient te doen om deze schade te voorkomen. Wanneer de aannemer onvoldoende zorgvuldig te werk gaat kan hij aansprakelijk worden gehouden voor deze schade. In dit artikel wordt besproken of ook een opdrachtgever aansprakelijk kan zijn wanneer er bouwschade ontstaat. In hoeverre kan van een opdrachtgever worden verwacht dat hij ingrijpt wanneer de aannemer onzorgvuldig te werk gaat? Hierna zal blijken dat een opdrachtgever minder snel aansprakelijk is dan een aannemer.
 In dit webartikel besteed ik geen aandacht aan het causaal verband tussen enerzijds de werkzaamheden en anderzijds de schade. Ook bespreek ik niet wat de gevolgen zijn van het ontbreken van een nulmeting of hoe de hoogte van de schade moet worden berekend. Hiervoor verwijs ik eveneens naar het andere webartikel waarin de aansprakelijkheid van een aannemer voor bouwschade wordt besproken.
 Is de aannemer een niet-ondergeschikte hulppersoon van de opdrachtgever?
 Artikel 6:171 BW regelt dat wanneer een niet-ondergeschikte een fout begaat terwijl hij in opdracht van een ander werkzaamheden verricht ter uitoefening van diens bedrijf, de opdrachtgever ook aansprakelijk is voor de schade die een derde partij lijdt. Bij een vlugge lezing van de precieze wettekst lijkt het er op alsof de opdrachtgever langs deze weg gemakkelijk aansprakelijk kan worden geacht voor bouwschade. Niets is minder waar.
 Artikel 6:171 BW moet restrictief worden toegepast. Uit de wetsgeschiedenis kan worden afgeleid dat de woorden: ‘werkzaamheden ter uitoefening van diens bedrijf’ een belangrijke beperking inhouden. De werkzaamheden van de niet-ondergeschikte moeten zeer sterke raakvlakken hebben met de werkzaamheden van de opdrachtgever. Dat hoeft overigens niet zo ver te gaan dat de benadeelde zou moeten denken dat de opdrachtgever en de aannemer deel uitmaken van dezelfde onderneming.
 De gedachte achter dit wetsartikel is dat vanuit de benadeelde niet altijd is te onderkennen of de schade te wijten is aan een fout van een ondergeschikte of van een zelfstandig handelende persoon die ter uitoefening van het bedrijf van de opdrachtgever werkzaamheden verricht.[1] De benadeelde kent de bouwplannen niet in detail en was ook niet op de bouwplaats aanwezig toen de fout werd gemaakt. Dit wetsartikel wil voorkomen dat de benadeelde zou moeten gaan bewijzen of de schade is veroorzaakt door de aannemer of bijvoorbeeld een werknemer van de opdrachtgever. Overigens kan een benadeelde nog steeds een beroep doen op artikel 6:171 BW wanneer het voor hem kraakhelder is dat de schade is veroorzaakt door een fout van de onderaannemer.[2]
 Er is zeer veel geprocedeerd over de toepassing en de reikwijdte van artikel 6:171 BW. Daarbij stond bijna altijd centraal wanneer sprake is van ‘werkzaamheden ter uitoefening van diens bedrijf’. Let wel: deze discussie kan ook gevoerd worden in gevallen waarin niet de aanneming van werk, maar de uitvoering van een opdracht centraal staat. Ik ga hier in dit webartikel niet diep op in. Voor een uitvoerige behandeling verwijs ik de lezer naar andere bronnen.
 Ik concludeer uit de jurisprudentie dat in het geval van bouwschade voor een succesvol beroep op artikel 6:171 BW de opdrachtgever en de aannemer in feite vergelijkbare activiteiten moeten verrichten. Artikel 6:171 BW kan daardoor worden ingeroepen om in klassieke bouwzaken zowel de hoofdaannemer als de onderaannemer aan te spreken.[3] Dit geldt ook in het geval de onderaannemer sloopwerkzaamheden in plaats van bouwwerkzaamheden verricht. [4]
 Let op: een aannemersbedrijf kan in sommige gevallen ook de uiteindelijke opdrachtgever zijn.[5] Echter, wanneer de opdrachtgever geen ‘klassieke bouwer of sloper’ is, kan moeilijk worden gezegd dat deze opdrachtgever dezelfde activiteiten ontplooit als de uitvoerder. Ze kunnen dan niet vanuit de visie van de benadeelde als een zekere eenheid worden beschouwd. Zonder deze eenheid kan aansprakelijkheid niet worden aangenomen.[6] Het voorgaande geldt bijvoorbeeld voor een woningstichting die opdracht geeft tot sloopwerkzaamheden.[7] Daaraan doet niets af dat de woningstichting zelf als een soort bouwheer optreedt. De bedrijfsvoering van een woningstichting bestaat uit het verhuren en aan een woningstichting kan niet de specialistische kennis van het bouwen en slopen worden toegedicht. Een particuliere opdrachtgever kan dan al helemaal niet met succes worden aangesproken op grond van artikel 6:171 BW.[8] In feite betekent dit dat de schade dan ook niet behoort tot de risicosfeer van deze opdrachtgevers.
 Uit het bovenstaande blijkt dus dat artikel 6:171 BW voornamelijk is bedoeld om de benadeelde een hulpmiddel te bieden. Het toepassingsbereik van artikel 6:171 BW is beperkt, maar kan dus nog wel een grote rol spelen wanneer een aannemer tevens opdrachtgever is voor een schadeveroorzakende onderaannemer. Artikel 6:171 BW is niet van toepassing wanneer de overheid, zoals een gemeente, de opdrachtgever is.[9]
 Onrechtmatig handelen van de opdrachtgever
 Wanneer de opdrachtgever niet automatisch aansprakelijk is op grond van artikel 6:171 BW, dan kan de opdrachtgever in sommige gevallen nog wel aansprakelijk zijn op grond van het leerstuk onrechtmatige daad (artikel 6:162 BW).
 Allereerst zal moeten worden vastgesteld of de opdrachtgever onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld. Het feit dat een opdrachtgever de werkwijze van de aannemer heeft geaccepteerd betekent niet zonder meer dat daarmee de aansprakelijkheid van de opdrachtgever een gegeven is.[10] Daarvoor dienen nadere omstandigheden te worden gesteld en bij tegenspraak bewezen. In beginsel kan de opdrachtgever zich immers verlaten op de deskundigheid van de aannemer.[11] Dat laatste kan natuurlijk anders zijn wanneer aan de opdrachtgever een ruime kennis over bouwen en slopen kan worden toegedicht (zie hierna).
 Voor een onrechtmatig handelen is noodzakelijk dat de opdrachtgever in strijd heeft gehandeld met de wet of in strijd met hetgeen volgens ongeschreven recht in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt. Naast een ‘handeling’ kan hieronder ook een nalatigheid worden geschaard, zoals het treffen van onvoldoende voorzorgsmaatregelen teneinde bouwschade te voorkomen.
 Van belang is of de opdrachtgever zelf betrokken is geweest bij het overleg. Heeft de opdrachtgever invloed uitgeoefend op de wijze van bouwen? Het antwoord op de vraag kan mijns inziens onder andere afhankelijk zijn van de professionaliteit van de opdrachtgever. Daarbij geldt dat de opdrachtgever zijn kennis ook ten goede kan gebruiken. Als de opdrachtgever bijvoorbeeld heeft aangedrongen op het gebruik van boortechnieken in plaats van heien, teneinde funderingswerkzaamheden zo veel mogelijk trillingsvrij uit te voeren, dan kan de opdrachtgever niet snel een verwijt worden gemaakt, ondanks dat er schade is ontstaan.[12]
 Onrechtmatig handelen van de gemeente als opdrachtgever
 De gemeente kan ook optreden als opdrachtgever. Hier ontstaat een bijzondere situatie. Aan de gemeente kan namelijk veel kennis worden toegedicht over de directe omgeving.
 Wanneer de gemeente geen risico’s heeft getaxeerd taxeren en niet de voor- en nadelen van de verschillende in aanmerking komende alternatieven tegen elkaar heeft afgewogen, ondanks dat zij hiertoe in staat kan worden geacht op basis van haar kennis, kan zij ook op grond van artikel 6:162 BW aansprakelijk zijn.[13]
 Een gemeente kan ook aansprakelijk zijn wanneer zij opdracht heeft gegeven tot het verrichten van sloopwerkzaamheden op enkele meters naast een pand van een derde en geen specifieke afspraken heeft gemaakt met de aannemer over de wijze waarop de werkzaamheden zouden worden verricht.[14]
 Een gemeente is niet per definitie op straffe van aansprakelijkheid gehouden om zelf (op locatie) toezicht te houden op de bouwwerkzaamheden.[15] Wanneer de gemeente niet zelf een CAR-verzekering heeft afgesloten handelt zij op zichzelf ook niet onrechtmatig.[16]
 Verdere vereisten voor een onrechtmatige daad
 Stel, de opdrachtgever heeft onrechtmatig gehandeld. De benadeelde moet dan ook bewijzen welke schade hij heeft geleden en hij moet bewijzen dat sprake is van een causaal verband tussen enerzijds de werkzaamheden en anderzijds de schade.
 Zoals ik reeds in de inleiding heb gemeld, verwijs ik voor deze onderdelen naar een ander webartikel waarin specifiek de aansprakelijkheid van een aannemer voor bouwschade wordt besproken. De opdrachtgever kan uiteraard als verweer altijd een beroep proberen te doen op het ontbreken van een causaal verband. Ook kan de opdrachtgever zich verweren door te stellen dat de uiteindelijke schade beperkt is.
 Onderlinge rechtsverhouding tussen opdrachtgever en aannemer
 Op grond van art. 6:102 lid 1 BW is de aansprakelijkheid jegens de benadeelde een hoofdelijke.[17] In hun interne verhouding kunnen de opdrachtgever en de aannemer een andere regeling hebben getroffen. Een opdrachtgever kan bijvoorbeeld aansprakelijk zijn voor de schade die het gevolg is van een door de opdrachtgever voorgeschreven werkwijze, zie § 5 lid 2 UAV 1989 en UAV 2012. Dit laatste is overigens ook in de wet geregeld, zie ook artikel 7:760 lid 2 en 3 BW.
 Ook een opdrachtgever kan aansprakelijk zijn voor bouwschade. Wanneer de opdrachtgever eveneens een aannemer is, dan is hij aansprakelijk voor een fout van een onderaannemer. In andere gevallen zal moeten worden beoordeeld of de opdrachtgever voldoende zorgvuldig is geweest. Een opdrachtgever kan zich met minimaal dezelfde verweren als de aannemer verdedigen tegen een schadeclaim.
 [1] HR 21 december 2001, NJ 2002, 75, rov. 3.5
 [2] HR 18-06-2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BL9596 (Koeman c.s./Sijm Agro,Agro); Gerechtshof Den Haag 26 februari 2013, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2013:BZ2823
 [3] Rechtbank Arnhem 13 juli 2011, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2011:BR4842
 [4] Zie bijvoorbeeld Rechtbank Dordrecht 14 september 2011, ECLI:NL:RBDOR:2011:BT7072
 [5] Rechtbank Arnhem 13 juli 2011, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2011:BR4842
 [6] Zie bijvoorbeeld ook Rechtbank Middelburg 2 mei 2012, ECLI:NL:RBMID:2012:BY0189
 [7] Gerechtshof Den Haag 26 februari 2013, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2013:BZ2823
 [8] Rechtbank Dordrecht 13 oktober 2003, ECLI:NL:RBDOR:2003:AM3305
 [9] Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch 4 juni 2013, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2013:CA2298; Rechtbank Leeuwarden 7 oktober 2009, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2009:BK0228
 [10] Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch 20 januari 2009, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2009:BH4224
 [11] Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch 20 januari 2009, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2009:BH4224
 [12] Rechtbank Leeuwarden 7 oktober 2009, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2009:BK0228
 [13] Rechtbank Arnhem 5 augustus 2009, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2009:BJ8799
 [14] Gerechtshof Amsterdam 23 april 2013, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:CA3102
 [15] Rechtbank Leeuwarden 7 oktober 2009, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2009:BK0228
 [16] Rechtbank Leeuwarden 7 oktober 2009, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2009:BK0228
 [17] Zie bijvoorbeeld Gerechtshof Amsterdam 23 april 2013, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:CA3102


type: wikipedia

text:
Bennej jew bennej ewlieni huwa figura ċentrali li twettaq il-proġetti tal-kostruzzjoni skont il-pjanta jew id-disinn tal-arkitett fiż-żminijiet premoderni. Jista’ jitqies bħala l-prekursur tal-arkitett u tal-inġinier modern li issa għandhom rwoli distinti u separati u anke ċertu ġerarkija fit-twettiq tax-xogħlijiet.
 Storikament, it-terminu kien jirreferi għall-"kap ta’ proġett ta’ kostruzzjoni fil-Medju Evu jew fir-Rinaxximent", u sors tal-1887 jiddeskrivi l-istatus tiegħu kif ġej:Bennej (ewlieni) huwa rikonoxxut bħala tali, mhux biss għall-kapaċità tiegħu li jibni struttura mill-isbaħ skont il-pjanta mfassla mill-arkitett għall-gwida tiegħu, iżda għall-kapaċità tiegħu li jifhem dik il-pjanta, u bil-ħila u s-sengħa tiegħu jinseġ flimkien il-materja prima li twassal għas-saħħa, għall-armonija, għas-sbuħija u għad-dehra ta’ binja li permezz tax-xogħol manwali tiegħu mill-pedamenti ssir abitazzjoni mill-isbaħ.
 It-terminu jintuża b’mod usa’ wkoll biex jinkludi “d-disinjaturi u l-bennejja tax-xogħol tal-kostruzzjoni fuq skala kbira li tgħallmu s-sengħa tagħhom b’mod iktar formali mill-bennejja ta’ forom primittivi fis-soċjetajiet preteknoloġiċi... minn żmien l-Eġizzjani u s-Sumeri (u xi każijiet anke qabel) sar-Rivoluzzjoni Industrijali”.
 Bħal fi snajja’ oħra, il-bennejja inizjalment kienu jiġu mħarrġa permezz ta’ apprendistati fit-tul għal persuni li diġà kellhom dak l-istatus, sikwit minn mindu jkunu żgħar, u s-sigrieti tas-sengħa tal-bennejja spiss kienu jkunu ttrattati bħala għarfien sagru".
 Illum il-ġurnata, bennej irid ikun imħarreġ mhux biss fis-sengħa manwali iżda spiss ikollu jkun imħarreġ fl-użu tal-makkinarju tal-kostruzzjoni u fit-teħid tal-prekawzjonijiet kollha biex jaħdem fis-sikurezza fil-post tax-xogħol tiegħu.
 Referenzi
 Ħoloq esterni
 Snajja
 Professjonijiet
 Sengħa tal-bini


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.11.2012
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 330/14
 A BIZOTTSÁG 1119/2012/EU VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2012. november 29.)
 a Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M DSM 11673-at, a Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376-ot, NCIMB 12455-öt és NCIMB 30168-at, a Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3676-ot és DSM 3677-et és a Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573-at tartalmazó készítmények bármely állatfaj takarmányadalékaként való engedélyezéséről
 (EGT-vonatkozású szöveg)
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a takarmányozási célra felhasznált adalékanyagokról szóló, 2003. szeptember 22-i 1831/2003/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 9. cikke (2) bekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az 1831/2003/EK rendelet rendelkezik az adalékanyagok takarmányokban történő felhasználásának engedélyezéséről, valamint az engedélyek megadásának feltételeiről és eljárásairól. Az 1831/2003/EK rendelet 10. cikkének a 10. cikke (1)–(4) bekezdésével összefüggésben értelmezett (7) bekezdése külön előírásokat határoz meg azoknak a termékeknek az értékelésére, amelyeket az említett rendelet alkalmazásának kezdetekor az Unióban szilázs-adalékanyagként használtak.
 (2)
 Az 1831/2003/EK rendelet 10. cikke (1) bekezdésének megfelelően a Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M DSM 11673-at, a Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376-ot, a Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12455-öt, a Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30168-at, a Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3676-ot, a Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3677-et és a Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573-at tartalmazó készítményeket mint a „szilázs-adalékanyagok” funkcionális csoportba tartozó, meglévő termékeket valamennyi állatfajra vonatkozóan felvették a takarmány-adalékanyagok közösségi nyilvántartásába.
 (3)
 Az 1831/2003/EK rendelet 10. cikkének a 7. cikkel összefüggésben értelmezett (2) bekezdése szerint kérelmeket nyújtottak be e készítmények valamennyi állatfaj takarmány-adalékanyagaként történő engedélyezésére, kérelmezve ezeknek az adalékanyagoknak a „technológiai adalékanyagok” kategóriába és a „szilázs-adalékanyagok” funkcionális csoportba való sorolását. A kérelmekhez csatolták az 1831/2003/EK rendelet 7. cikkének (3) bekezdésében előírt adatokat és dokumentumokat.
 (4)
 Az Európai Élelmiszerbiztonsági Hatóság (a továbbiakban: Hatóság) 2012. május 23-i (2) és június 14-i (3) véleményeiben megállapította, hogy az érintett készítmények a javasolt felhasználási feltételek mellett nincsenek káros hatással az állatok, illetve az emberek egészségre, valamint a környezetre. A Hatóság azt is megállapította, hogy az érintett Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M DSM 11673, Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376, Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12455, Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30168 készítmények – a pH-szint csökkenése és a fennmaradó szárazanyag és/vagy protein mennyiségének növekedése révén – valamennyi zöldtakarmány esetében javíthatják a szilázstermelést. A Hatóság megállapította továbbá, hogy az érintett Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3676 és Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3677 készítmények a tejsavtartalom és a szárazanyag eltarthatóságának növelése révén, valamint a pH-szint csökkenése és fehérjevesztés enyhe csökkenése révén javíthatják a könnyen vagy mérsékelten nehezen silózható alapanyagból történő szilázstermelést. Azt is megállapította, hogy az érintett Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573 készítmény sok zöldtakarmány esetében növelheti az ecetsav koncentrációját. A Hatóság szerint nem szükséges elrendelni a forgalomba hozatalt követő egyedi nyomonkövetési előírásokat. A Hatóság ellenőrizte továbbá az 1831/2003/EK rendelettel létrehozott közösségi referencialaboratórium által benyújtott, a takarmányban lévő takarmány-adalékanyagok vizsgálatakor alkalmazott analitikai módszerről szóló jelentést.
 (5)
 Az érintett készítmények értékelése azt mutatja, hogy az 1831/2003/EK rendelet 5. cikkében előírt engedélyezési feltételek teljesülnek. Ennek megfelelően az említett készítmények használata az e rendelet mellékletében meghatározottak szerint engedélyezhető.
 (6)
 Mivel biztonsági okok nem indokolják az engedélyezési feltételek módosításának azonnali alkalmazását, helyénvaló átmeneti időszakot biztosítani arra, hogy az érdekelt felek felkészülhessenek az engedélyezésből adódó új követelmények teljesítésére.
 (7)
 Az e rendeletben előírt intézkedések összhangban vannak az Élelmiszerlánc- és Állategészségügyi Állandó Bizottság véleményével,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Engedélyezés
 A mellékletben meghatározott, a „technológiai adalékok” adalékkategóriába és a „szilázsadalékok” funkcionális csoportba tartozó készítmények takarmányadalékként történő használata a mellékletben meghatározott feltételek mellett engedélyezett.
 2. cikk
 Átmeneti intézkedések
 A mellékletben szereplő készítmények és az azokat tartalmazó takarmányok, amelyeket 2013. június 20. előtt állítottak elő és címkéztek fel, a 2012. december 20. előtt alkalmazandó szabályoknak megfelelően a meglévő készletek kimerüléséig továbbra is forgalomba hozhatók és használhatók.
 3. cikk
 Hatálybalépés
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő huszadik napon lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2012. november 29-én.
 a Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) HL L 268., 2003.10.18., 29. o.
 (2) EFSA Journal 2012; 10(6):2733.
 (3) EFSA Journal 2012; 10(7):2780.
 MELLÉKLET
 Az adalékanyag azonosító száma
 Az engedély jogosultjának neve
 Adalékanyag
 Összetétel, kémiai képlet, leírás, analitikai módszer
 Állatfaj vagy -kategória
 Felső korhatár
 Minimális tartalom
 Maximális tartalom
 További rendelkezések
 Az engedély lejárta
 CFU/kg friss anyagban
 Kategória: technológiai adalékanyagok. Funkcionális csoport: szilázs-adalékanyagok.
 1k2104
 —
 Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M -DSM 11673
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 3 × 109 CFU/g adalékanyagot tartalmazó Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M -DSM 11673 készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M DSM 11673
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15786)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 3 × 107 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 1k2105
 —
 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 1 × 1011 CFU/g adalékot tartalmazó Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 23376) készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15786)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 1 × 108 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 1k2106
 —
 Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12455
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 3 × 109 CFU/g adalékot tartalmazó Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12455 készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12455
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15786)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 3 × 107 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 1k2107
 —
 Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30168
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 5 × 1010 CFU/g adalékot tartalmazó Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30168 készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30168
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15786)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 1 × 108 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 1k20731
 —
 Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3676
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 6 × 1011 CFU/g adalékot tartalmazó Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3676 készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3676
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15787)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 1 × 108 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Az adalékanyagot könnyen vagy mérsékelten nehezen silózható alapanyagban kell felhasználni (2).
 4.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 1k20732
 —
 Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3677
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 4 × 1011 CFU/g adalékot tartalmazó Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3677 készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 3677
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15787)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 1 × 108 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Az adalékanyagot könnyen vagy mérsékelten nehezen silózható alapanyagban kell felhasználni (2).
 4.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 1k20733
 —
 Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573
 Az adalékanyag összetétele
 Legalább 2 × 1011 CFU/g adalékot tartalmazó Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573 készítmény
 A hatóanyag jellemzése
 Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573
 Analitikai módszer
 (1)
 Számlálás a takarmány-adalékanyagban: lemezkenéses módszer (EN 15787)
 Azonosítás: Pulzáló erőterű gél-elektroforézis (PFGE)
 Valamennyi állatfaj
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Az adalékanyag és az előkeverék használati utasításában feltüntetendő a tárolási hőmérséklet és az eltarthatósági időtartam.
 2.
 Az adalékanyag minimális dózisa más mikroorganizmus nélkül történő szilázs-adalékanyagként való felhasználása esetén: 1 × 108 CFU/kg friss anyagban.
 3.
 Biztonsági előírás: használatkor védőmaszk és védőkesztyű viselése ajánlott.
 2022. december 20.
 (1) Az analitikai módszerek részletes leírása a referencialaboratórium honlapján található: http://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EURLs/EURL_feed_additives/Pages/index.aspx
 (2) Könnyen silózható takarmány: > 3 % oldható szénhidrát a friss alapanyagban. Mérsékelten nehezen silózható takarmány: 1,5–3,0 % oldható szénhidrát a friss alapanyagban. A 429/2008/EK bizottsági rendelet (HL L 133., 2008.5.22., 1. o.).


text:
Milenii: Mileniul I î.Hr. - Mileniul I - Mileniul al II-lea
 Secole: Secolul al VI-lea - Secolul al VII-lea - Secolul al VIII-lea
 Decenii: Anii 550 Anii 560 Anii 570 Anii 580 Anii 590 - Anii 600 - Anii 610 Anii 620 Anii 630 Anii 640 Anii 650
 Ani: 604 605 606 607 608 - 609 - 610 611 612 613 614
 Evenimente
 Arte, științe, literatură și filozofie
 Nașteri
 Decese
 Vezi și
 Listă de conducători de stat din 609