Superfund: Extent to Which Most Reforms Have Improved the Program Is
Unknown (Letter Report, 05/12/2000, GAO/RCED-00-118).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program administrative reforms,
focusing on the: (1) reforms' demonstrated results and the performance
measures EPA uses to gauge these results; and (2) legislative changes to
the program that either EPA or key stakeholders--including, among
others, officials representing parties responsible for cleanups,
environmental groups, and states--believe are still necessary.
GAO noted that: (1) EPA claims and stakeholders agree that, in general,
the Superfund program has improved and the administrative reforms have
collectively contributed to this improvement; (2) however, GAO
determined that, for a majority of the 62 reforms, it is difficult for
EPA to demonstrate the extent to which they are working and have met the
goals set for them--to make the program faster, fairer, and more
efficient; (3) while maintaining that all the reforms are important, EPA
reform managers acknowledged that 42 reforms did not have a fundamental
effect, and EPA could not easily collect the data to measure the results
achieved for most of them; (4) 20 reforms had a fundamental effect, and
for these reforms: (a) EPA's performance measures demonstrated that 7
had achieved benefits, such as dollar savings--EPA has saved $70 million
to date by identifying less costly cleanup alternatives--and greater
community involvement in cleanups; (b) EPA's measures counted the number
of times that 7 were implemented but did not demonstrate the results
achieved; and (c) EPA did not have measures to demonstrate the results
that 6 had achieved; (5) EPA's data for the 14 fundamental and
measurable reforms show two trends suggesting that the progress made to
date may be eroding; (6) the implementation rates for almost half of
these reforms peaked in fiscal year 1997 and declined in subsequent
years; (7) the implementation rates for some reforms varied widely among
the regions, possibly indicating inconsistent application; (8)
stakeholders identified regional inconsistency as a problem with some
reforms; (9) therefore, better measurement and oversight of the key
reforms, as well as better understanding of the reasons for regional
variation in the implementation of some, could help EPA obtain the
maximum benefits possible from its reform initiative; (10) EPA and
stakeholders agree that targeted legislative changes would do more than
EPA's administrative reforms to protect certain parties from the current
Superfund law's liability provisions, however, they disagree on the
extent of change; (11) according to EPA, it is not seeking any
legislation to codify its reforms, but it would support legislative
proposals to limit liability for some parties that stakeholders have
identified; (12) these parties include prospective purchasers of
contaminated property and owners who are not responsible for or aware of
contamination on their property; and (13) EPA does not see a need for
other legislative changes, such as limiting liability for small
businesses, because it believes its reforms have created the tools
needed to provide relief for these parties.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-00-118
TITLE: Superfund: Extent to Which Most Reforms Have Improved the
Program Is Unknown
DATE: 05/12/2000
SUBJECT: Waste disposal
Hazardous substances
Performance measures
Environmental legislation
Cost effectiveness analysis
Pollution control
Liability (legal)
Cost control
Environmental monitoring
Program evaluation
IDENTIFIER: Superfund Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-118
Appendix I: Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as Fundamental
and as Having Achieved Measurable Results
24
Appendix II: Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did Not
Classify as Both Fundamental and Measurable
78
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
110
Appendix IV: Comments From the Environmental Protection
Agency
113
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
117
Table 1: Fourteen Fundamental/Measurable Reforms and Their Output and
Outcome Measures 10
Table 2: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution 24
Table 3: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting "Enforcement First" 28
Table 4: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Settlements With Small
Waste Contributors 31
Table 5: Performance Goals and Measures for Reaching Agreements With
Prospective Purchasers 35
Table 6: Performance Goals and Measures for Providing Compensation for
Orphan Shares 39
Table 7: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of
Site-Specific Accounts 43
Table 8: Performance Goals and Measures for Revised Guidance on Settlements
With Miniscule Waste Contributors 47
Table 9: Performance Goals and Measures for Updating Remedy Decisions 49
Table 10: Performance Goals and Measures for Increasing Construction
Completions 53
Table 11: Performance Goals and Measures for Establishing the National
Remedy Review Board 57
Table 12: Number of Board Reviews and Estimated Savings, Fiscal Years
1996-2000 58
Table 13: Performance Goals and Measures for Using the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model 61
Table 14: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Community Involvement
67
Table 15: Performance Goals and Measures for Funding Brownfield Assessment
Pilot Projects 74
Table 16: Six Fundamental Reforms That Lack Performance Measures 79
Table 17: List of 42 Reforms That EPA Did Not Specifically Identify as
Having Fundamentally Changed the Superfund Program 88
Figure 1: Comparison of Four Regions' Superfund Workloads and Rates of
Implementation for Three Reforms 15
Figure 2: Superfund Liability Cases Initiated Using Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Fiscal Years 1993-98 25
Figure 3: Each Region's Percentage of National Superfund Cases in Which
Alternative Dispute Resolution Was Used, Fiscal Years 1993-98 26
Figure 4: Percentage of New Cleanup Actions Funded by Responsible Parties,
Fiscal Years 1987-99 29
Figure 5: Average Percentage of New Cleanups Funded by Responsible Parties,
by Region, Compared With the National Average, Fiscal Years 1995-99 30
Figure 6: Number of De Minimis Settlements, Fiscal Years 1987-99 32
Figure 7: Each Region's Percentage of National De Minimis Settlements,
Fiscal Years 1987-99 33
Figure 8: Number of Prospective Purchaser Agreements Completed, Fiscal Years
1989-99 36
Figure 9: Each Region's Percentage of National Prospective Purchaser
Agreements, Fiscal Years 1989-99 37
Figure 10: Number of Orphan Share Compensation Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99
40
Figure 11: Each Region's Percentage of National Orphan Share Compensation
Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99 41
Figure 12: Number of Special Accounts Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99 44
Figure 13: Each Region's Percentage of National Special Accounts
Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National
Superfund Sites 45
Figure 14: Number of Cleanup Remedy Updates per Year, Fiscal Years 1982-99
50
Figure 15: Each Region's Percentage of National Cleanup Remedy Updates,
Fiscal Years 1996-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 51
Figure 16: Number of Sites Designated as Construction Complete, Fiscal Years
1981-99 54
Figure 17: Each Region's Percentage of National Construction Complete Sites,
Fiscal Years 1981-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 55
Figure 18: Each Region's Percentage of National Remedy Review Board Reviews
58
Figure 19: Number of Non-Time-Critical Removals, Fiscal Years 1980-99 62
Figure 20: Each Region's Percentage of National Non-Time-Critical Removals,
Fiscal Years 1992-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 63
Figure 21: Each Region's Percentage of National Integrated Assessments,
Fiscal Years 1994-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 64
Figure 22: Community Advisory Groups Established, Through the End of Fiscal
Year 1999 68
Figure 23: Technical Assistance Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1988-99 69
Figure 24: Technical Outreach Projects Initiated, Fiscal Years 1994-99 70
Figure 25: Each Region's Percentage of National Community Involvement
Activities, Through the End of Fiscal Year 1999 71
CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GAO General Accounting Office
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
NPL National Priorities List
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-284890
May 12, 2000
Congressional Requesters
For years, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program has
been criticized for a number of problems. These have included the pace and
cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites, the agency's approach for holding
waste contributors liable for cleaning up sites, and the overall
effectiveness of the program. Responding to these criticisms, in June 1993,
EPA began implementing a series of 62 administrative reforms--actions that
it could take under its existing legal authority to improve the program's
fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness. According to EPA, these reforms
have led to faster cleanups of more sites, thereby better protecting public
health and the environment. In addition, EPA maintains that the reforms have
promoted the selection of more cost-effective cleanup methods and fairer
enforcement of the law. The agency has publicly stated that, because of the
administrative reforms, comprehensive legislative reform of the Superfund
program is no longer necessary, although the agency is willing to support
certain targeted legislative changes.
As the Congress considers reauthorizing the Superfund law, it has been
debating the extent to which legislative changes to the program would be
desirable. A key factor in making this determination is the extent to which
EPA's administrative reforms have addressed previously identified weaknesses
in the program. In this context, you requested that we review EPA's reforms
to
� determine their demonstrated results and evaluate the performance measures
the agency uses to gauge these results and
� identify legislative changes to the program that either the agency or key
stakeholders--including, among others, officials representing parties
responsible for cleanups, environmental groups, and states--believe are
still necessary.
We obtained basic information from EPA for all 62 reforms, including their
characteristics, scope, implementation status, overall goals, and
performance measures, where available. We also conducted a more detailed
analysis of a subset of 14 reforms that the agency characterized as having
significantly and measurably improved the program. Appendix I provides a
summary of our analysis of each of the 14 reforms. Appendix II provides a
summary of the information we collected on the remaining 48 reforms. To
determine the results of the reforms and any legislative changes needed, we
met with a judgmental sample of officials representing key stakeholders
affected by the Superfund program, including various industry groups, state
cleanup agencies, and environmental groups. Officials representing industry
and state cleanup agencies provided the majority of the comments about the
reforms. (App. III provides a listing of the stakeholders we contacted and a
more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.)
EPA claims and stakeholders agree that, in general, the Superfund program
has improved and the administrative reforms have collectively contributed to
this improvement. However, we determined that, for a majority of the 62
reforms, it is difficult for the agency to demonstrate the extent to which
they are working and have met the goals set for them--to make the program
faster, fairer, and more efficient. While maintaining that all the reforms
are important, EPA reform managers acknowledged that
� 42 reforms did not have a fundamental effect, and EPA could not easily
collect the data to measure the results achieved for most of them;
� 20 reforms had a fundamental effect; for these reforms,
� the agency's performance measures demonstrated that 7 had achieved
benefits, such as dollar savings--EPA has saved $70 million to date by
identifying less costly cleanup alternatives--and greater community
involvement in cleanups;
� the agency's measures counted the number of times that 7 were implemented
but did not demonstrate the results achieved; and
� the agency did not have measures to demonstrate the results that 6 had
achieved.
Furthermore, EPA's data for the 14 fundamental and measurable reforms show
two trends suggesting that the progress made to date may be eroding. First,
the implementation rates for almost half of these reforms peaked in fiscal
year 1997 and declined in subsequent years. Second, the implementation rates
for some reforms varied widely among the regions, possibly indicating
inconsistent application. Moreover, stakeholders identified regional
inconsistency as a problem with some reforms, and EPA acknowledged that
ensuring such consistency is a challenge. Therefore, better measurement and
oversight of the key reforms, as well as better understanding of the reasons
for regional variation in the implementation of some, could help EPA obtain
the maximum benefits possible from its reform initiative. We are making
recommendations that the agency take such actions.
EPA and stakeholders agree that targeted legislative changes would do more
than the agency's administrative reforms to protect certain parties from the
current Superfund law's liability provisions; however, they disagree on the
extent of change. According to EPA, it is not seeking any legislation to
codify its reforms, but it would support legislative proposals to limit
liability for some parties that stakeholders have identified. These parties
include prospective purchasers of contaminated property and current owners
who are not responsible for or aware of contamination on their property. EPA
does not see a need for other legislative changes, such as limiting
liability for small businesses, because it believes its reforms have created
the tools needed to provide relief for these parties.
In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, to
clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. EPA places sites that it
determines may need long-term cleanup actions, called remedial actions, on
its National Priorities List (NPL). For sites needing cleanup, EPA or
private parties conduct studies to assess the risks and select, design, and
construct cleanup remedies. CERCLA authorizes EPA to compel the parties
responsible for the contaminated sites to clean them up. Under CERCLA, any
responsible party at a site can, under some circumstances, be held
responsible for the entire cost of the cleanup.1 Responsible parties can, in
turn, sue other parties to recoup some of their own expenses. Through this
process, parties can incur high legal costs. The law also allows EPA to pay
for cleanups and seek reimbursement from the parties, and it established a
trust fund, financed primarily by taxes on crude oil and chemicals, to help
EPA pay for its cleanups and related activities. The Superfund program's
authorization and the authority for the taxes financing the trust fund
expired in 1995 and have not been renewed. The Congress continues to fund
the program through annual appropriations from the Superfund trust fund and
general revenues.
Meanwhile, to address concerns about the high costs and long duration of
cleanups, EPA, beginning in 1993, publicly announced three separate rounds
of administrative reforms--actions it could take within its existing
legislative authority. These include
� 17 reforms announced in June 1993,
� 19 reforms announced in February 1995, and
� 26 reforms announced in October 1995.
These 62 reforms were intended to cover a range of activities, such as (1)
providing liability relief to certain parties, including contributors of
small volumes of waste or innocent landowners and purchasers, (2) selecting
more technologically advanced and cost-effective cleanup remedies, (3)
providing funds to assess brownfield sites to promote their economic
redevelopment,2 (4) providing technical assistance so that communities and
tribes located near sites can better participate in cleanup decisions, and
(5) providing for an expanded role for states and tribes in the performance
of the program.
In 1997, we reviewed the 45 reforms from the second and third rounds and
reported that EPA regarded 25 of them, or 56 percent, as fundamental changes
to the Superfund program but could quantify accomplishments for only 6 of
them, or 13 percent.3 EPA stated that, overall, it did not need additional
legislative authority to achieve the reforms' goals but that targeted new
authority would enhance their implementation.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act)
requires that agencies, among other actions, (1) establish strategic plans
containing general goals for the agencies and (2) prepare annual performance
plans that establish goals and measures to assess the results of individual
programs. Therefore, in response to requirements of the Act, EPA established
three general goals for the reforms--faster, fairer, and cost-effective
cleanups--and performance measures for a number of the reforms, all of which
support the agency's strategic and annual goals for the Superfund program
overall. The performance measures for the reforms are intended to
demonstrate progress toward achievement of their goals, which include, among
others, increasing the number of sites where the construction of the cleanup
remedy has been completed and maximizing the participation in cleanups of
the parties responsible for contamination at sites.
Improvements in the Program
EPA claims that as a result of the administrative reforms, the program is
fairer and cleanups are 20 percent faster and cheaper.4 The stakeholders we
contacted also commented that overall, after 20 years, they have a better
working relationship with EPA, the agency is fairer in dealing with
responsible parties, and it is easier to use remedies that are, in their
opinion, more reasonable and cost-effective. But stakeholders also had
questions about the extent to which some of the administrative reforms had
really improved the program. We reviewed EPA' s performance measures for
each reform and found that the agency has more measures in place since our
last review, and for a small number of reforms, the measures demonstrate
results such as cost savings. However, EPA cannot directly link the majority
of its reforms to improvements in the program.
According to EPA reform managers, all 62 reforms are important and have
helped to improve the program, but 42 of them involve activities that (1)
did not have a fundamental impact on the program and (2) could not easily be
measured for any results achieved. EPA reform managers identified the
remaining 20 reforms as activities that have had a fundamental effect on the
program. EPA has established performance measures for 14 of them--an
increase since our prior review, when EPA had measures for 6 of its key
reforms. As table 1 illustrates, EPA's measures for all 14 reforms track the
number of times they were implemented, but measures for only 7 reforms
demonstrate how they have improved the program.
Table 1: Fourteen Fundamental/Measurable Reforms and Their Output and
Outcome Measures
Continued
Measures that count
Fundamental/measurable Year of frequency of Measures that
reform reform implementation demonstrate
(output) results (outcome)
EPA has used this
tool at 9-24 sites
each year.
Encourage greater use of The number of
alternative tools for settlements that EPA
resolving liability 1993a reached peaked in
disputes fiscal year 1997 and
declined slightly
the following year.
Data for fiscal year
1999 were not
available.
EPA maintains that
responsible parties
Promote "enforcement have funded about
first"--getting private 70-84 percent of
parties to fund most of 1993 a cleanups since
the cleanups fiscal year 1992,
the year before EPA
announced the
reform.
EPA has achieved
more settlements
after the reform
(33-105 each year)
than before the
Promote more settlements reform.
to provide liability
protection for de The number of
minimis contributors 1993 a settlements EPA
(parties that contribute achieved peaked in
small amounts of waste) fiscal year 1997,
significantly
declined in fiscal
year 1998, and only
slightly increased
in fiscal year 1999.
EPA has signed 16-28
agreements each year EPA facilitated
since the reform. the purchase of
Negotiate agreements to 1,500 acres of
provide liability The number of contaminated
protection for 1995 a agreements EPA property and the
prospective purchasers achieved peaked in redevelopment of
of contaminated property fiscal year 1997 and hundreds of
has been declining thousands of
over the past 2 adjacent acres.
years.
EPA has made from
20-30 compensation
offers each year,
Provide compensation for for a total of
cleanup costs $175.3 million.
attributable to 1995
insolvent and defunct EPA has reached
parties (orphan shares) agreement on a total
of 47 of these
offers, for $88
million.
EPA has set up 18-33
accounts each year
since the reform,
making over $570
million available
for site-specific
cleanups.
EPA will measure the
Encourage the use of number and amounts
special accounts for of disbursements
site-specific cleanup 1995 a from these acounts
costs beginning in fiscal
year 2000.
The number of
accounts EPA
established peaked
in fiscal year 1997
and has been
declining over the
past 2 years.
Revise guidance on
liability protection
settlements for de
micromis parties 1995 EPA has made a total
(parties that contribute of 16 settlements.b
miniscule amounts of
waste)
EPA began updating
remedies as early as
1983 and has updated
61-85 remedies each
year since fiscal
year 1995, the year EPA estimates the
net future cost
Update cleanup remedy before it announced savings from the
decisions to take this reform. updates conducted
advantage of new science 1995 a during fiscal
and technology The number of years 1996-99
remedies EPA updated
peaked in fiscal could total $1.3
year 1997, declined billion.c
in fiscal year 1998,
and remained at
about that level in
fiscal year 1999.
EPA has completed
Increase the number of the construction of
sites where the all remedies at
construction of all 1993 a 61-88 sites each
cleanup remedies has year since fiscal
been completed year 1992, the year
before it announced
this reform.
Establish the National EPA estimates
Remedy Review Board to EPA has reviewed that its reviews
review high-cost 1995 9-11 cleanup have saved a
proposed remedies proposals each year. total of $70.7
million to date.
EPA has accomplished
12-27
non-time-critical
removals each year
Use the Superfund since fiscal year EPA estimates
Accelerated Cleanup 1992, the year that it saves, on
Model (which allows the before it announced average, about
use of shorter-term this reform. $2,500 and 11
cleanup actions, called 1993 a months by
removals, and combined EPA accomplished a combining
site assessment total of 442 assessments at a
activities) integrated site.
assessments and 405
combined assessments
through fiscal year
1999.
EPA estimates
that over 1,900
properties have
been assessed,
120 have been
cleaned up, and
Fund brownfield EPA funded a total 169 have been
assessment pilot 1995 a of 305 assessment redeveloped and
projects grants through that over 5,800
October 1999. jobs and about
$1.9 billion of
private dollars
have been
leveraged at
sites assessed
with EPA funds.
EPA has helped to EPA surveyed
form 3-16 community members of
advisory groups each communities near
year. 7 Superfund sites
Establish community and determined
advisory groups 1995 a The number of groups that 47 percent
EPA established believe that EPA
peaked in fiscal is effectively
year 1997 and has involving them in
been declining over the Superfund
the past 2 years. process.
EPA has awarded 4-37
grants each year
since fiscal year
1988 and has
conducted 7-46
technical outreach
projects each year. EPA surveyed
members of
Promote early and more The number of grants communities near
effective community awarded since the 7 Superfund sites
involvement (primarily reform peaked in and determined
through technical 1993 fiscal year 1995, that 47 percent
assistance grants and declined the next believe that EPA
outreach projects) year, and has is effectively
remained at about involving them in
that level. the Superfund
process.
The number of
outreach projects
established peaked
in fiscal year 1998
and declined in
fiscal year 1999.
aThis was not a new activity, but EPA reemphasized or revised it as part of
the agency's administrative reform effort.
bAccording to EPA, the fact that so few parties have asked for a settlement
means that such parties are no longer being threatened with lawsuits from
larger parties for a share of the cleanup costs. Therefore, in EPA's view,
the reform is a success.
cWe did not verify the accuracy of EPA's savings estimate; a 1997 industry
study cautioned that these savings may be overstated.
Source: GAO's presentation of information from EPA.
EPA's outcome measures demonstrate positive results for seven reforms. The
measures indicate that two reforms have helped the agency move toward its
goal of more cost-effective cleanups by achieving significant dollar savings
on the types of remedies selected at sites. The measures also demonstrate
that five other reforms have achieved positive results, such as an increase
in the number of brownfield sites assessed (since assessment leads to
cleanup and redevelopment) and feelings of greater participation in cleanup
decisions expressed by some communities that received grants, technical
assistance, or outreach from EPA.
For the seven reforms that do not have outcome measures, it is difficult for
EPA to determine how well they are working, whether they need revision to
become more effective, and whether they are achieving their intended
results--faster, fairer, and cheaper cleanups. For example, it is difficult
for the agency to determine from its performance measures whether using
alternative dispute resolution has led to settlements with responsible
parties that are fairer, take less time, and reduce legal costs. It is also
difficult for the agency to determine, just by counting how many times a
reform has been implemented each year, the extent to which the reform has
become a routine part of the overall program.
EPA reform managers acknowledged that it is very difficult to set
performance measures that directly demonstrate the extent to which the 14
reforms are achieving their goals. The managers pointed out that a number of
reforms, such as those addressing the remedies selected at a site, work
together to cumulatively benefit the program and the agency cannot
separately measure the contribution of each reform. The managers further
acknowledged that factors other than the reforms themselves likely
contributed to the benefits the agency attributes to some of the reforms.
For example, an agencywide policy on the use of alternative dispute
resolution across all EPA programs, not the Superfund reform alone, helped
to increase the use of this technique, and the agency cannot measure the
success of this reform alone.
In a November 1997 internal review of the reforms, EPA acknowledged
limitations in its performance measures and agreed that it needed to do more
than count how many times a reform has been implemented to determine its
results. Furthermore, when the agency has tried to improve its evaluation of
a reform, its efforts have paid off. Specifically, it has learned in some
instances that a reform was not working as well as intended and needed to be
improved. For example, in 1999, EPA completed the first phase of an ongoing
effort to measure the effects of its community involvement reforms. One of
its findings was that only about half of those surveyed considered the
agency effective in involving their communities in the Superfund process,
leading the agency to conclude that it needed to improve its implementation
of these reforms. To its credit, EPA is taking actions to evaluate the
performance of the reforms overall, as well as of certain individual
reforms. The agency is about to update its 1997 internal review of the
reforms to develop a strategy to improve their implementation. In addition,
it is currently compiling the results of a survey it conducted with 36
property buyers to determine how effectively its agreements with these
buyers to limit their liability under Superfund law have helped to stimulate
the reuse of their properties.
The agency recognizes that to fully evaluate the results of reforms, it
needs input from responsible parties. One way of obtaining this input is by
surveying parties on the reforms. However, under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, EPA cannot survey more than nine members of the public without the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 1999, EPA asked
OMB for general authority to conduct up to 15 separate surveys of
responsible parties' experiences with the reforms. OMB denied the request,
in part because it did not specify how EPA planned to collect and analyze
the data. However, OMB encouraged EPA to resubmit its request after it had
developed a statistical data collection and analysis plan, among other
things. EPA managers said they are trying to decide how to respond to OMB's
suggestions, given the agency's limited resources for contractors to perform
surveys and competing priorities for these resources. During March of this
year, however, EPA did obtain general agencywide authority from OMB to
conduct customer satisfaction surveys. This authority may be sufficient for
the reform managers to survey responsible parties on the reforms.
EPA's data on the 14 reforms also showed two trends indicative of limits on
the progress achieved to date and possibly in the future, namely, that EPA
may not be sustaining its implementation of the reforms and that the regions
may be inconsistent in their use of some reforms. First, EPA's data on the
number of times the 14 reforms have been implemented showed that for almost
half of the reforms, implementation peaked in fiscal year 1997 and then
declined in subsequent years. This suggests that the regions may not be
sustaining the level of implementation achieved after the reforms were
announced and may need additional support or incentives to sustain their
implementation. Alternatively, other factors may be mitigating the effects
of the reforms over time. EPA reform managers acknowledged that the
implementation of some reforms may naturally decline at some time in the
future, when EPA has finished constructing most remedies and is likely to be
bringing fewer sites into the program. We acknowledged in two 1999 reports
that the construction of most remedies at sites currently in the program
would be completed by 2005 and that, because states are now taking on more
of the cleanup workload, fewer sites may come into the program in the
future.5 However, EPA cleanup managers stated that these possible future
trends for the program do not explain the declines in implementation that we
identified for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Second, EPA's data also showed that the regions varied widely in the number
of times they used most of the reforms, possibly indicating inconsistency in
their use of the reforms. According to the data, all regions appear to be
giving priority to completing the construction of cleanup remedies. In part,
this is because EPA headquarters has made this a top priority for the
Superfund program, has monitored the regions' implementation closely, and
this past year for the first time made mid-year regional budget adjustments
to reward the regions that were achieving this goal. However, the data for
other reforms do not appear to show consistent levels of implementation
across the regions. For example, regions II and V have relatively large
portions of the overall Superfund workload to manage--17 and 20 percent,
respectively. Yet Region V implemented a significantly higher portion of the
total non-time-critical removals and combined site assessments than Region
II, as figure 1 illustrates. Likewise, regions II and V used special
accounts and removals less frequently or as often as regions VII and VIII,
yet these latter two regions had much smaller portions of the Superfund
workload. Such regional variation could indicate that certain regions are
not realizing the potential savings in time and costs expected from the
reforms.
Figure 1: Comparison of Four Regions' Superfund Workloads and Rates of
Implementation for Three Reforms
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
EPA reform managers pointed out that factors other than the sizes of the
regions' Superfund workloads may account for the variation and are beyond
the regions' control. For example, for several reforms, such as those to
enhance community involvement in cleanups, the regions can offer the
reforms, but it is up to stakeholders to pursue them. Or, one region may
have fewer sites involving multiple responsible parties, so that region may
have fewer opportunities to use some of the reforms aimed at achieving
faster, cheaper settlements. However, without determining why such
significant variations exist among the regions, EPA cannot be sure that its
reforms are being used to the maximum extent possible.
Furthermore, EPA reform managers acknowledged that ensuring regional
consistency is a constant challenge for the agency and that some regions
were quicker than others to embrace the reforms. In fact, in a 1997 review
of the reforms, EPA itself identified the need to ensure better commitment
to the reforms. The EPA managers noted that differences in the
organizational structures and leadership of the regions could lead to
inconsistencies in implementing the reforms. Likewise, industry and state
cleanup agency officials expressed concerns that some regions, and even
cleanup managers within regions, are less willing than others to implement
certain reforms. These officials felt, therefore, that they could not
realize the full benefits of the reforms, such as lowering litigation and
cleanup costs.
EPA reform managers in headquarters and in the two regions we contacted
outlined EPA's current methods to help ensure that the regions implement the
reforms. These include the use of headquarters liaisons to the regions who
monitor the regions' progress towards annual targets--the number of times
the regions implement certain reforms--and conduct regional visits,
conference calls, and training sessions to discuss the reforms. EPA has also
issued new or updated guidance on the use of some of the reforms. By better
targeting these methods, EPA could more fully achieve the reforms' goals
across the regions.
EPA and some stakeholders we contacted--officials representing industry,
state cleanup agencies, and environmental and community groups--agreed on
the benefits of establishing some of the administrative reforms in law but
disagreed on the need to do so for other reforms. More specifically, the
stakeholders preferred that reforms intended to provide liability protection
to certain parties, such as prospective property purchasers, be established
in law. Stakeholders worried that otherwise, EPA regions had too much
discretion to decide which parties would benefit and affected parties did
not have a firm basis to challenge these decisions. EPA managers explained
that the agency would support legislation, if proposed, to provide liability
relief for such parties but that the agency itself is not currently seeking
any legislation to codify its reforms. According to EPA, it would support
such proposals because they would (1) give such parties greater assurance
that they would not be held liable for the costs of a cleanup under
Superfund, (2) reduce the parties' legal costs, and (3) promote the
development of brownfields, since the fear of being held liable under
current Superfund law can deter parties from pursuing brownfield cleanups
and redevelopment.
Stakeholders and EPA both favored legislation that would provide liability
protection for
� prospective purchasers of contaminated property,
� landowners who were not responsible for or aware of contamination on their
property (innocent landowners),
� owners of property contiguous to a contaminated site, and
� small municipal waste generators and transporters.
Both EPA and the officials representing industry would also like the agency
to be able to compensate parties more extensively for the shares of cleanup
costs attributable to insolvent or defunct parties as a means of promoting
faster and less costly settlements. However, EPA cleanup managers said that
the agency could not afford to do this without obtaining additional funding
authority for this purpose from the Congress. The managers said the agency
continues to request additional funds for the Superfund program that would
allow it to devote more resources to covering such shares of cleanup
costs--$150 million in fiscal year 2001--but have not yet obtained such
funds.
EPA and stakeholders did not agree on the need for other legislative
changes. For example, EPA did not agree with the executive director of the
organization representing small businesses on the need for further
legislative authority to protect such businesses. The agency maintains that
its administrative reforms aimed at removing small waste contributors from
lengthy settlement negotiations, protecting them from litigation, and
adjusting their settlement costs on the basis of their ability to pay
provided these businesses with ample relief. The executive director
acknowledged that these reforms were helpful but said that some member
businesses still report incurring high legal costs that threaten their
financial viability. Therefore, these businesses would like the liability
protection and other benefits of the reforms established in law to make them
less discretionary and further reduce costs.
EPA and stakeholders also differ on how much liability relief should be
extended to parties that conduct cleanups under state programs. In general,
officials representing industry and the states explained that the fear of
being held liable under the current Superfund law deters parties that would
voluntarily clean up sites under state programs, especially brownfield
sites.6 EPA has maintained that it cannot provide parties that clean up a
site under a state program with full relief from Superfund liability. But
the agency can provide these parties with assurances that it no longer has
any interest in the site unless it presents an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or the environment in the future. The industry
and state officials believe that this qualified relief from liability is not
sufficient to overcome barriers to cleanups and that a legislative solution
may be necessary.
Several bills that would exempt various parties from liability and therefore
would limit the potential sources of funding for cleanup costs have been
introduced in the Congress in recent years. While some proposed bills to
reauthorize the Superfund program would reinstate the expired Superfund
taxes, others would not. The Congress has not passed any of these bills.
EPA claims and stakeholders agree that the Superfund program is working
better and that, at least collectively, the administrative reforms have
played some part in this improvement, but the agency has not measured the
impact of most reforms. This limits the agency's ability to determine how
well the reforms are working and where it may need to adjust its reform
efforts. EPA's ability to better measure the results of its reforms could be
further limited if the agency does not obtain important data and input from
the responsible parties that are conducting a majority of cleanups, as well
as other key stakeholders, such as community and environmental groups.
Furthermore, without sustaining the most important reforms and ensuring that
all regions are implementing them to the maximum extent possible, the agency
is not assured that it is fully achieving potential benefits, such as saving
significant cleanup dollars and cleaning up sites more quickly. Therefore,
as the agency updates its internal review of the reforms and develops a
reform strategy, it has the opportunity to consider ways that it could
better (1) measure the results of the most important reforms and (2) verify
that it does not have a problem with inconsistent regional implementation
for some reforms.
To achieve the maximum benefits possible from the Superfund administrative
reforms, the Administrator, EPA, should direct the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, who manages the Superfund program,
to address, in EPA's internal review and update of the reforms, ways in
which the agency can
� cost-effectively obtain additional data--for those reforms with the
greatest potential for improving the program--that would help it better
assess the reforms' results, including continuing to pursue authority from
OMB to solicit input from private parties and other key stakeholders on the
success of the reforms, and
� target incentives or other strategies as necessary to sustain the
implementation of some reforms and better understand whether regional
variation in their use reflects inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and
comment. EPA's comments are reproduced in appendix IV. EPA said that it
would evaluate our recommendations and include them in its Superfund reforms
strategy, as appropriate. However, EPA had three principal concerns about
our findings. While we acknowledge the agency's position on these issues, as
discussed individually below, we continue to believe that our findings were
soundly developed and fairly presented. Therefore, we did not change our
report in response to these concerns. Specifically:
� The agency regards all 62 reforms as important and believes that they have
improved the program, even if the precise results of many cannot be
measured. EPA said that it had designated 20 of the 62 reforms as
fundamental because they had the biggest impact, individually, on the
program, but that many of the remaining 42 reforms work together with the
fundamental reforms to improve specific aspects of the program, such as
remedy selection. We had already noted in the report that the agency
considered all reforms to be important and beneficial to the program and
that the agency believed certain reforms worked together to improve the
program, even though the agency could not measure their individual
contributions to the improvements.
� The agency disagreed with our finding that several of the reforms it
designated as fundamental have not produced measurable outcomes. The agency
also stated that it is difficult to measure progress toward certain goals,
such as greater fairness in the program and lower litigation costs, but
there are a number of indicators of this progress. In addition, EPA said
that it has been unable to obtain the authority from OMB to survey private
parties on the reforms' accomplishments. In assessing these accomplishments,
we asked the agency to provide us with any data that it had to demonstrate
results. We took these data and used two criteria to designate whether the
data represented output or outcome performance measures: (1) the standard
definition under the Results Act that an output measure counts activities
undertaken while an outcome measure assesses the results of a program
activity compared to its intended purpose, and (2) the extent to which the
performance measure directly assessed progress toward or achievement of
EPA's stated goals for a reform. Subsequently, we found that our designation
of EPA's performance measures as measuring either activities conducted or
results achieved was consistent with the way the agency itself characterized
them in its issued work plan for Superfund, generated in response to the
Results Act. Furthermore, we had already acknowledged in the report some of
the difficulties the agency faced in measuring progress toward the reforms'
goals and attempting to obtain authority to ask stakeholders for important
data that the agency needed to measure the reforms' results.
� The agency maintains that it has sustained a high level of commitment to
implementing the reforms. Furthermore, the agency stated that the trend data
cited in the report indicating possible declines and regional variation in
the implementation of some reforms over the past several years do not
demonstrate a decrease in the agency's commitment but could reflect the
impact of other factors. These include factors such as annual differences in
the types and number of cleanup activities being conducted in a particular
region, or an overall decline in the cleanup workload as more sites progress
through the cleanup process. These factors could also include ones that the
agency cannot control, such as different levels of interest among
stakeholders in using community advisory groups or technical assistance
grants. We had already acknowledged in the report that the trends showing
variation in implementing the reforms could be due to a number of factors.
One of these factors was not, however, an overall decline in the cleanup
workload. As we point out, the agency itself had admitted that such a
decline could affect reform accomplishments in the future, but does not
explain the decrease in accomplishments over the past several years.
Furthermore, our point is that without good performance data, the agency
cannot know if certain trends indicate implementation problems that the
agency needs to address or are due to factors outside the agency's control.
We showed that when the agency has obtained data from stakeholders on the
reforms' accomplishments, it has learned valuable information about
implementation problems and taken subsequent action to address them.
Therefore, we believe that by focusing on the most critical reforms and
significant variation in their implementation and verifying the root cause
of this variation, the agency could achieve similar improvements in these
reforms.
In addition to these overall comments, EPA provided technical and clarifying
comments that we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
Unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of
this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we
will send copies of the report to appropriate congressional committees and
interested members of the Congress. We will also send copies of this report
to the Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA; and the Honorable
Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget, and we will make
copies available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-6111
if you or your staff have any questions. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection
Issues
List of Requesters
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Michael G. Oxley
Chairman, Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as Fundamental and as Having Achieved
Measurable Results
This appendix summarizes our analysis of the 14 administrative reforms that
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) characterized as having
significantly and measurably improved the Superfund program. For each of the
reforms, our analysis considers the performance goals and measures and the
results identified by EPA, our own and stakeholders' observations, and EPA's
and others' views on the need for any additional authority to implement the
reform.
In 1993, EPA initiated a reform to encourage parties at Superfund sites to
use alternative methods for resolving disputes over liability for cleanup
costs. These methods--used by the agency since 1987--include employing
neutral parties to organize negotiations to allocate cleanup costs among all
involved parties and facilitate settlement deliberations. EPA initiated
training for staff and allocated funds to its regions for alternative
dispute resolution programs. Table 2 shows EPA's performance goals and
measures for this reform.
Table 2: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Number of Superfund
enforcement
Increase cases/sites using
Encourage greater use program's alternative dispute
of alternative dispute fairness resolution: 133 since
resolution in settling None 1987
disagreements over Reduce litigation
Superfund liability and associated Percentage of cases
costs using alternative
dispute resolution
that reach settlement:
78-80 percent
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 2 shows how many Superfund liability cases EPA initiated each year
using alternative dispute resolution.
Figure 2: Superfund Liability Cases Initiated Using Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Fiscal Years 1993-98
Note: Fiscal year 1998 was the last year for which EPA was able to provide
complete data on this reform.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
EPA's data for fiscal years 1993-98 indicate that all regions have used
alternative dispute resolution techniques in resolving Superfund disputes
(see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Each Region's Percentage of National Superfund Cases in Which
Alternative Dispute Resolution Was Used, Fiscal Years 1993-98
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: The data show that the use of alternative dispute
resolution techniques has increased since the reform was initiated. However,
the use of these techniques decreased in fiscal year 1998. The data are
insufficient to determine if this is a long-term trend.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers acknowledge that other
initiatives--including an agencywide policy and several laws7 authorizing
the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques--have contributed to
the greater use of these techniques in Superfund cases, but they cannot
isolate the effects of either the reform or these other factors.
� Regional implementation: The data show variations among the regions in
implementing this reform that do not correspond with differences in the
sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA reform managers, one
possible explanation for these variations is that not all sites are
appropriate for the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.
However, the agency cannot determine the number of sites that might be
appropriate for using the techniques.
� Performance measurement:
� Counting the number of times alternative dispute resolution is used does
not directly demonstrate that the program is fairer and that litigation and
its associated costs have decreased. Nevertheless, the increased use of
alternative dispute resolution could imply that the program is "fairer" than
it would have been otherwise because all parties are satisfied with how
cleanup costs are allocated under the agreements reached.
� EPA does not (1) track litigation costs; (2) have access to this
information; and (3) according to EPA reform managers, have authority to
require private parties to provide it.
EPA reform managers do not believe that the agency needs any additional
legal authority to pursue this reform.
In 1990, EPA began to emphasize more vigorous Superfund enforcement to
increase the proportion of cleanup actions funded by responsible parties.
EPA included "enforcement first" among the administrative improvements it
announced in fiscal year 1993. Under this initiative, EPA seeks commitments
from responsible parties to fund and perform at least 70 percent of all new
remedial action work at Superfund sites. Table 3 shows EPA's performance
goals and measures for this reform.
Table 3: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting "Enforcement First"
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Percentage of total
Increase program's cleanup actions
fairness funded by responsible
Emphasize parties: About 70
enforcement to Expedite cleanups percent as of fiscal
encourage cleanups None year 1999 (GPRAa
by responsible Increase the measure)
parties proportion of
cleanups funded by Amount committed by
responsible parties parties toward
cleanups since 1980:
$16.2 billion
aAccording to EPA, these measures track and/or project the number of actions
that occur throughout the year (accomplishments) and are used to evaluate
the program's progress in support of the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA or the Results Act).
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 4 shows the percentage of new cleanup actions funded by responsible
parties during fiscal years 1987-99.
Figure 4: Percentage of New Cleanup Actions Funded by Responsible Parties,
Fiscal Years 1987-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Figure 5 shows, for each EPA region, the average percentage of new cleanups
started by responsible parties during fiscal years 1995-99, compared with
the national average of 70 percent.
Figure 5: Average Percentage of New Cleanups Funded by Responsible Parties,
by Region, Compared With the National Average, Fiscal Years 1995-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: EPA has, over time, increased the proportion of new
cleanup actions financed by responsible parties and, in recent years,
maintained this proportion at about 70 percent or higher. Both EPA reform
managers and industry representatives credit the reform with these results.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other
factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.
� Regional implementation: Regional data indicate that the regions vary in
the extent to which they are obtaining responsible parties' commitments to
fund new cleanup activities initiated each year. For each region,
responsible parties' rate of participation in cleanups varies from year to
year, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. These variations do not correspond with
differences in the sizes of the regions' Superfund workloads.
� Performance measurement: Measuring the rate at which responsible parties
pay for cleanups does not directly measure progress toward or achievement of
this reform's goal of increasing the program's fairness. Nevertheless,
ensuring that responsible parties are now paying for a larger portion of the
Superfund cleanup work than they did earlier in the program could imply that
the program is "fairer" than it would have been without the reform.
EPA reform managers do not believe that the agency needs any additional
legal authority to pursue this reform.
In 1993, EPA began to emphasize efforts to resolve the liability of de
minimis parties as early as possible in the Superfund process. According to
EPA, de minimis parties are those whose contributions of hazardous waste to
a Superfund site are minimal in volume and toxicity. With this reform, EPA
simplified its requirements for determining parties' eligibility for such
settlements, streamlined the settlement process, and issued guidance to its
regions encouraging these settlements. Table 4 shows EPA's performance goals
and measures for this reform.
Table 4: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Settlements With Small
Waste Contributors
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Reduce litigation Number of settlements
Encourage more and associated with de minimis
liability settlements costs parties: 465 as of the
with parties that have end of fiscal year
contributed small Increase program's 1999 (GPRA measure)
amounts of waste at a fairness None
site (de minimis Number of parties
parties) Encourage more, released from the
early, and Superfund liability
expedited system: Over 21,000 as
settlements of the end of fiscal
year 1999
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 6 shows the number of de minimis settlements per year during fiscal
years 1987-99.
Figure 6: Number of De Minimis Settlements, Fiscal Years 1987-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
EPA's data show that all regions have completed de minimis settlements (see
fig. 7).
Figure 7: Each Region's Percentage of National De Minimis Settlements,
Fiscal Years 1987-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects:
� Although the number of de minimis settlements has generally increased
above prereform levels, this number has fluctuated significantly from year
to year since the reform began. The number of settlements EPA achieved
peaked in fiscal year 1997 and subsequently declined. Although the data are
insufficient to determine if this is a long-term trend, these fluctuations
could suggest that EPA may not be sustaining the implementation of this
reform.
� EPA reform managers stated that the number of de minimis settlements for
fiscal year 1997 is unusually high because (1) 42 of these settlements
involved parties at a single site who each wanted an individual settlement
and (2) 25 settlements involved de minimis landowners at another site who
were provided protection for $0. According to the reform managers, these two
site-specific experiences, which appear to have dramatically increased the
number of settlements in fiscal year 1997, were anomalies. When the de
minimis settlements for these two sites are removed, 40 such settlements
remain for the year--a total that is more in line with EPA's national
average and GPRA target, according to these managers.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other
factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.
� Regional implementation: The data show variations among the regions in
implementing this reform that do not correspond with differences in the
sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA reform managers, one
possible explanation for these variations is that de minimis parties are not
involved at all sites, and the mix of sites with such parties may vary from
region to region and year to year.
� Performance measurement: EPA's measures of this reform's success do not
directly indicate progress toward or achievement of its goals--increasing
the program's fairness and reducing litigation and its associated costs.
However, because de minimis settlements remove small or innocent parties
from the liability allocation process and shield them from costly
litigation, the settlements could imply that the program is "fairer" than it
would have been otherwise.
� Views on the reform's benefits/effectiveness:
� The executive of the organization representing independent businesses
stated that, in his opinion, based on information from member companies,
EPA's de minimis settlements do not sufficiently protect landowners from
Superfund cleanup liability because these parties incur high costs to reach
de minimis settlements. However, EPA disagrees, maintaining that the
majority of de minimis parties have paid less than $5,000 each to resolve
their liability.
� Industry representatives felt that removing de minimis parties from the
liability allocation process early would shield them from paying their fair
share of cleanup costs because they would not incur responsibility for any
cost overruns that might occur later in the cleanup. EPA reform managers
maintain that de minimis parties pay a premium to settle early and that this
premium is often in excess of any cost overruns that occur.
� Some small businesses would like to see de minimis protection established
in law, including a provision that would treat a party's ability to pay as a
mitigating factor in the settlement, according to the executive of the
organization representing independent businesses.
� EPA disagrees that additional legislation is needed and argues that it has
sufficient authority, models, and guidance in place to successfully
accomplish de minimis and ability-to-pay settlements.
In May 1995, EPA revised its guidance on agreements with prospective
purchasers. In such an agreement, EPA promises not to sue a purchaser for
contamination that the purchaser did not cause in exchange for the
purchaser's commitment to perform cleanup work or provide funds toward
cleaning up the site. EPA (1) revised the criteria for evaluating whether it
should negotiate an agreement, (2) broadened the universe of sites at which
it would consider negotiating an agreement, and (3) encouraged a more
balanced trade-off between the benefits to EPA and the public from these
agreements. Table 5 shows EPA's performance goals and measures for this
reform.
Table 5: Performance Goals and Measures for Reaching Agreements With
Prospective Purchasers
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Number of
prospective
Facilitated the purchaser
purchase of over agreements
Provide assurances Increase 1,500 acres of signed: 114 since
to prospective program's contaminated 1989
purchasers of fairness property
contaminated Number of
property that they Restore Spurred the prospective
will not be held contaminated redevelopment of purchaser
liable for cleanup sites to hundreds of agreement
costs beneficial use thousands of requests
adjacent acres received/
nationwide addressed (GPRA
measure beginning
in fiscal year
2000)
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 8 shows the number of prospective purchaser agreements completed
since fiscal year 1989.
Figure 8: Number of Prospective Purchaser Agreements Completed, Fiscal Years
1989-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Regional data indicate that all regions are implementing this reform,
although at varying rates, as shown in figure 9.
Figure 9: Each Region's Percentage of National Prospective Purchaser
Agreements, Fiscal Years 1989-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: The number of prospective purchaser agreements has
increased since the reform was initiated. However, the number of agreements
peaked in fiscal year 1997 and has declined during the past 2 years. This
decline may indicate that EPA is not sustaining its implementation of this
reform. It is difficult for EPA to determine from its performance measures
whether the reform has had a significant effect on efforts to redevelop
brownfield properties.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers acknowledge that
factors other than this reform--particularly the agency's focus on the reuse
of contaminated properties-- contributed to the overall increase in the
number of agreements.
� Regional implementation: The data show variations among the regions in
implementing this reform that do not correspond with differences in the
sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA reform managers, one
possible explanation for these variations is that the number of agreements
is determined by responsible parties' requests for such agreements, over
which EPA has no control. Consequently, according to these managers, the
number of agreements for each region would not be expected to be
proportional to the size of its workload.
� Performance measurement:
� An increase in the number of prospective purchaser agreements completed
does not directly demonstrate that EPA is achieving this reform's
goals--increasing the program's fairness and restoring sites to beneficial
use. However, because these agreements absolve purchasers of contaminated
property who did not cause the contamination of future cleanup liability,
the agreements could imply that the program is "fairer" than it would have
been otherwise. Similarly, the number of agreements could imply that this
reform contributes to property redevelopment because, by limiting liability,
an agreement makes the purchase of a contaminated property more economically
attractive, encouraging potential buyers to purchase and redevelop it.
� In fiscal year 2000, EPA began tracking the number of agreement requests
received and assessed as a measure of the reform's performance. These data
will not directly measure the reform's effect on the program.
� EPA recognized that it needed to measure the reform's effectiveness more
directly. Accordingly, in the summer of 1998, EPA surveyed the regional
personnel and private parties who had negotiated the 85 prospective
purchaser agreements in existence at that time. Thirty-six of the 85 private
party representatives (42 percent) participated in the survey. The findings
are being compiled for a summary report, to be available in 2000.
� Representatives of the responsible parties we contacted believe that this
reform does not provide the permanent assurances against liability that they
need to make purchases of contaminated property economically attractive.
They maintain that legislation is needed to provide full protection.
� EPA supports legislation that would provide relief from liability to
prospective purchasers of contaminated property, as well as innocent
landowners, contiguous property owners, and small municipal waste generators
and transporters.
Defunct Parties (Orphan Shares)
In October 1995, EPA began compensating parties who agree to perform cleanup
activities at a Superfund site for some or all of the cleanup costs
attributable to other insolvent or defunct parties. Because these parties
cannot pay or are no longer available to pay the costs for which they are
responsible, their shares of the cleanup costs are known as the orphan
shares. EPA developed interim guidance on compensation for orphan shares,
limiting it to (1) 25 percent of the cleanup remedy or removal costs, (2)
the total past and future oversight costs, or (3) the amount of the actual
orphan shares, whichever is less. Table 6 shows EPA's performance goals and
measures for this reform.
Table 6: Performance Goals and Measures for Providing Compensation for
Orphan Shares
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Number of compensation
offers/ dollar amounts
offered: 98 offers/$175.3
million offered through
fiscal year 1999 (GPRA
measure)
Compensate responsible Increase
parties who agree to program's Number of compensation
clean up a site for fairness agreements reached/dollar
costs owed by None amount of compensation
insolvent parties Reduce provided: 47
(orphan shares) litigation and agreements/$88 million
associated costs
through the first quarter
of fiscal year 2000
Maximum amount
appropriate for
compensation
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 10 shows the number of orphan share compensation offers made through
fiscal year 1999.
Figure 10: Number of Orphan Share Compensation Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Figure 11 shows the percentage of orphan share compensation offers made by
each EPA region through fiscal year 1999.
Figure 11: Each Region's Percentage of National Orphan Share Compensation
Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: The relatively steady trend in the number of orphan
share offers made over the period reflects the number of sites eligible for
the reform. The amount of orphan share compensation relates to the amount of
past costs and future oversight costs available to compensate.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other
factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.
� Regional implementation:
� The limited funds EPA has had each year to offset the costs it assumes
during settlements make it difficult to determine if the regions could be
more extensively implementing the reform.
� EPA reform managers suggested that differences in the regions'
implementation of this reform do not necessarily indicate inconsistent
implementation because the types of sites and costs of cleanup vary across
the country. For example, regions VIII, IX, and X made fewer offers because
the sites are owner- and/or operator-only sites that EPA excludes from
compensation.
� Performance measurement:
� The number of offers and the dollar amounts offered do not directly
demonstrate that EPA has achieved or made progress toward the reform's
goals--increasing the program's fairness and reducing litigation and its
associated costs. Nevertheless, offering to compensate parties for costs
that are attributable to parties who contributed to a site's contamination
but cannot pay for the cleanup could imply that the program is "fairer" than
it would have been otherwise.
� Data on the number of settlements reached and the compensation paid would,
at best, indirectly measure the reform's results.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness:
� Industry representatives believe this reform can lead to faster
settlements. However, they believe that the limits EPA has set on orphan
share compensation can discourage settlements. Some representatives believe
that (1) they are not any better off under the reform; (2) EPA is less
likely to compensate large, financially viable responsible parties; (3) EPA
is inconsistent in deciding what portion of cleanup costs are orphan shares;
and (4) EPA designates some parties as viable, even though the site itself
is their only asset.
� Some parties would like additional compensation and would like EPA to be
more forthcoming about factors such as dollar constraints that limit its
compensation decisions.
� EPA reform managers said that the agency cannot afford to provide
additional compensation without obtaining more funding from the Congress.
Moreover, according to the managers, parties are not worse off under EPA's
policy because the agency can still forgive past costs over and above the
orphan share limits when negotiating settlements. Finally, the managers
noted, EPA provides orphan share calculations to parties at the beginning of
settlement negotiations so that they know the basis for its decisions. The
managers acknowledged that these calculations are rough but said that
providing more detailed ones would be too costly.
To give responsible parties complete relief from liability for costs that
are not attributable to their activities at a site, EPA reform managers
said, EPA needs a congressional allocation to cover the costs attributable
to the activities of insolvent or defunct parties. In each of its annual
budget requests from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000, EPA
requested $200 million for orphan share compensation, which it wanted the
Congress to provide in a separate account so that the funding for such
compensation would not affect the funding for cleanup. However, EPA and the
Congress have not been able to agree on a legislative proposal to authorize
additional compensation. In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, EPA
decreased its request for orphan share compensation to $150 million in order
to request funds for other purposes.
In October 1995, EPA began encouraging the greater use of "special
accounts." These can be established with any funds received in a Superfund
settlement for a site and can then be used to conduct or finance cleanup
actions or to reimburse responsible parties for future cleanup actions at
the site. The accounts create incentives for the parties to perform cleanup
work under settlements with EPA. Table 7 shows EPA's performance goals and
measures for this reform.
Table 7: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of
Site-Specific Accounts
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Increase Number of accounts and
program's amounts of funds
Promote the greater use fairness available: 133
of site-specific accounts/
accounts that hold Encourage $570 million available
funds obtained through responsible for site-specific
settlements with parties to None cleanups
parties at a site for settle
cleanup actions at that Number of settlements
site Reduce disbursing funds from
litigation and accounts and amounts
associated costs disbursed (beginning in
fiscal year 2000)
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 12 shows the number of special accounts established between fiscal
year 1990 and fiscal year 1999.
Figure 12: Number of Special Accounts Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
EPA's data show that all regions are implementing this reform (see fig. 13).
Figure 13: Each Region's Percentage of National Special Accounts
Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National
Superfund Sites
Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities
List sites as of Sept. 30, 1999.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects:
� More new special accounts have been established since EPA's reform than
were established before the reform.
� However, the number of new accounts began increasing a few years before
the reform; therefore, the data do not directly link the increases to the
reform.
� The number of new accounts has not increased continuously: in fiscal year
1998, it decreased by about 30 percent from the previous year and continued
to decline in fiscal year 1999. This drop in the number of accounts may
indicate that EPA is not sustaining its implementation of this reform.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA was unable to identify any factors
other than the reform that could have contributed to either the initial
increase or the subsequent decrease in the number of special accounts.
� Regional implementation: The number of accounts established by some
regions was not proportional to the sizes of their Superfund workloads,
suggesting possible inconsistency in regional implementation (see fig. 13).
Furthermore, it is difficult for EPA to determine from its performance
measures whether the number of accounts--133--relative to the hundreds of
eligible Superfund sites nationwide is significant.
� Performance measurement:
� The numbers of settlements/accounts and the amounts of funds deposited do
not directly demonstrate that EPA is achieving the reform's
goals--increasing the program's fairness and encouraging parties to perform
cleanups. There is no clear correlation between the establishment of
accounts and either the program's fairness or the number of settlements.
� Similarly, the numbers of settlements designating disbursements and the
amounts disbursed do not directly measure either fairness or the reform's
effects on settlements.
� EPA reform managers told us that measuring the effects of funds in special
accounts on responsible parties' decisions to settle and perform cleanups
would be another performance measure to track the reform's outcomes.
However, this information would be difficult for EPA to obtain because the
agency cannot survey such parties without receiving approval from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect the information. OMB denied EPA's
initial request, and EPA has not decided whether it will submit a revised
request.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness:
� According to a 1999 audit of the special accounts by EPA's Office of the
Inspector General, (1) EPA's process for reconciling transactions and
balances did not ensure that errors could be identified and corrected and
(2) regional personnel were not always sufficiently aware of the existence
and intended use of these accounts. EPA has agreed to take actions such as
revising guidance and providing the regions with updated information and
instructions on technical aspects of managing the accounts to correct many
of the identified problems.
� Industry stakeholders we contacted said they do not consider this a
significant reform because EPA has not made account funds widely available
to responsible parties. EPA reform managers responded that the original
reform did not include disbursements from the special accounts to
potentially responsible parties. EPA first published guidance on
disbursements to potentially responsible parties in November 1998.
EPA reform managers said no additional legal authority is needed to pursue
this reform.
In June 1996, EPA revised its existing guidance to further prevent de
micromis parties--those who contributed miniscule amounts of waste to a
Superfund site--from incurring legal and other costs that may exceed their
share of the site's cleanup costs. The revised guidance (1) expanded the
number of parties eligible for de micromis settlements, (2) offered no-cost
protective agreements that remove de micromis parties from the liability
process, (3) streamlined and simplified the settlement process, and (4)
clarified and emphasized EPA's intent to protect such parties. Table 8 shows
EPA's performance goals and measures for this reform.
Table 8: Performance Goals and Measures for Revised Guidance on Settlements
With Miniscule Waste Contributors
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Revise guidance to Increase
discourage litigation program's Number of settlements
against de micromis fairness with de micromis
parties--those who None parties: 16 at 11
contributed miniscule Reduce sites through fiscal
waste volumes to sites litigation and year 1999
associated costs
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
During fiscal years 1993-98, EPA completed 16 de micromis settlements with
parties at 11 Superfund sites. The settlements at five of the sites were
based on EPA's 1993 de micromis guidance, drafted before the reform, and
those at the remaining six sites were based on the agency's 1996 guidance,
revised after the reform. Region III had the largest number of sites with de
micromis settlements (five) through fiscal year 1999; Region II had three
settlements; Regions I, IV, and IX had no settlements; and the remaining
regions had either one or two settlements each.
� Sustained effects: Because the number of de micromis settlements is small,
it is difficult to determine the extent to which the reform has had an
effect or if these effects have been sustained.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other
factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.
� Regional implementation: Because so few settlements have been completed to
date, the data are insufficient to determine if the regions are implementing
the reform consistently.
� Performance measurement: EPA's measures of the success of this reform do
not directly indicate the extent to which the reform is achieving its
goals--increasing the program's fairness and reducing litigation and its
associated costs. However, because de micromis settlements remove parties
that have contributed only miniscule amounts of waste at a site from the
liability process, thereby shielding them from costly litigation, these
settlements could imply that the program is fairer than it would have been
otherwise and that the potential for litigation and any associated costs has
been reduced.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness:
� EPA reform managers believe that the reform is successful if EPA
negotiates only a few de micromis settlements. They believe that the reform
deters responsible parties from filing third-party contribution suits to get
the small parties to help pay for cleanups. If the reform has such a
deterrent effect, small parties do not need a de micromis settlement for
protection.
� Industry representatives agreed that EPA is now more successful in
removing de micromis parties from the liability process.
� The executive of the organization representing small businesses believes
that some miniscule contributors may continue to incur often-onerous legal
costs. EPA reform managers acknowledge that such contributors may incur
legal expenses if either EPA does not identify them as de micromis parties
or they do not identify themselves to EPA in a timely manner.
� EPA reform managers said the agency does not need any additional legal
authority to pursue this reform.
� Some private parties we contacted believe that de micromis liability
protection needs to be established in law to shield miniscule contributors
from onerous legal costs.
In October 1995, EPA began encouraging the regions to revisit cleanup
remedies selected in the past and, where appropriate, to select different
remedies that incorporate recent technological advances, ensuring that the
updated remedies are both protective and more cost-effective. EPA issued
guidance on updating remedy decisions in September 1996. Table 9 shows EPA's
performance goals and measures for this reform.
Table 9: Performance Goals and Measures for Updating Remedy Decisions
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Encourage the Total
regions to revisit estimated
previous remedy Enhance remedies' future cost Total number of
decisions and use cost-effectiveness savings and remedy updates
new scientific increases for approved: 295
information or Implement remedies that all remedy during fiscal
technological reflect advances in updates: $1.3 years 1996-99
advances to update science or technology billion
the decisions through fiscal
year 1999
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 14 shows the number of cleanup remedies updated annually during
fiscal years 1982-99.
Figure 14: Number of Cleanup Remedy Updates per Year, Fiscal Years 1982-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
While EPA reported that the 295 remedies it had updated since the reform
started would result in future cost savings of more than $1.3 billion, the
agency also estimated that some of these updates would result in cost
increases totaling approximately $123 million.
Data from EPA show that all 10 regions are implementing this reform, as
illustrated in figure 15.
Figure 15: Each Region's Percentage of National Cleanup Remedy Updates,
Fiscal Years 1996-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites
Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities
List sites as of Sept. 30, 1999.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects:
� EPA's data show that the regions are updating remedy decisions and
achieving cost savings for both responsible parties and EPA. However, the
upward trend in the number of remedy updates during the 7 years preceding
the reform raises questions about the extent to which the reform itself
promoted updating.
� The number of remedies EPA updated peaked in fiscal year 1997, declined in
fiscal year 1998, and remained at about the same level in fiscal year 1999.
The decline in the number of remedy updates since fiscal year 1997 may
indicate that EPA is not sustaining its implementation of this reform.
� EPA predicts that at some point in the future, the regions will have
reviewed most past remedies for an update and the opportunities to achieve
additional cost savings will decrease. But for fiscal year 2000, the regions
plan to review about as many remedies as they have reviewed in the past few
years.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA acknowledges that other reforms
addressing the selection of cleanup remedies, such as a directive providing
more flexibility to assume that sites will be used for industrial rather
than residential purposes and will therefore require less extensive cleanup,
also contributed to the cost savings achieved.
� Regional implementation:
� Some industry representatives said that individual cleanup managers and
regions differ in their willingness to consider a remedy for an update; as a
result, the representatives believe they do not have a consistent chance to
achieve cost savings.
� EPA does not know whether the regions are considering all possible
remedies. EPA's data show regional differences in the number of updates--one
region updated three times as many remedies as another, even though both
regions managed about the same number of Superfund sites.
� EPA did not determine the reasons for the differences. However, according
to EPA reform managers, some regions could have more sites with contaminated
groundwater than other regions. Such sites would be good candidates for
remedy updates because new technologies have become available for cleaning
up contaminated groundwater. According to these reform managers, a remedy
update depends on the availability of new data suggesting that a
modification to the remedy may be feasible; without new data, there is no
basis to change the remedy.
� Performance measurement:
� Measuring the extent of the reform's effect is difficult. EPA admits that
its estimates of cost savings are not rigorous, partly because the agency
depends on private parties to voluntarily provide estimates of cost savings
for the cleanups they manage. The agency believes that it is not
cost-effective to obtain and track more precise cost data to better measure
savings.
� We could not verify the cost savings claimed because EPA (1) does not
maintain supporting documentation for the savings estimates and (2) cannot
require private parties to provide such documentation.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness: Industry representatives gave
high marks to this reform for leading to more cost-effective cleanups.
EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to
pursue this reform.
In 1991, EPA began to classify certain sites as construction complete. A
site is considered construction complete when one or more of the following
conditions is met:
� Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final
cleanup levels have been met.
� EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures
that do not involve construction.
� A site qualifies for deletion from the National Priorities List (when no
further action is needed to protect human health and the environment).
One of the reforms announced by EPA in 1993 aimed to increase the number of
sites designated as construction complete. Reflecting this priority, in the
mid-1990s, EPA shifted funds from assessing sites whose inclusion in the
Superfund program was not yet certain to completing the construction of
remedies at sites already in the program. Table 10 shows EPA's performance
goals and measures for this reform.
Table 10: Performance Goals and Measures for Increasing Construction
Completions
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Number of sites where
Increase the number all remedies have been
of sites where all Accelerate constructed: 670
remedies have been construction and Nonea through the end of
constructed advance the program fiscal year 1999 (GPRA
measure)
aThe EPA manager for this reform considers the number of sites where
construction has been completed to be an outcome measure. We disagree;
therefore, we show the measure as an output.
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figure 16 shows the number of sites whose cleanup remedies were complete as
of the end of fiscal year 1999.
Figure 16: Number of Sites Designated as Construction Complete, Fiscal Years
1981-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Each EPA region has completed the construction of cleanup remedies at a
similar rate relative to its share of the nation's Superfund sites (see fig.
17).
Figure 17: Each Region's Percentage of National Construction Complete Sites,
Fiscal Years 1981-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites
Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities
List sites as of Sept. 30, 1999.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: EPA has increased the number of sites designated as
construction complete, in part because of its reform.
� Contribution of other factors:
� The EPA manager for this reform said that other reforms, such as those
promoting the use of more cost-effective remedies or faster settlements with
responsible parties, have also contributed to increases in construction
completions, but the effects of individual reforms cannot be isolated and
measured.
� The maturing of the program, which is now about 20 years old, also
contributed to the increase. With the construction of many remedies taking
more than 10 years to complete, the number of completions was expected to
grow by the early 1990s. Moreover, when EPA shifted resources to this
reform, it also increased the backlog of sites awaiting assessment and
consideration for inclusion in the Superfund program.
� Regional implementation: EPA's data suggest that all regions are
consistently implementing this reform. The number of sites where EPA can
complete construction is limited by the funds available each year for this
purpose.
� Performance measurement:
� EPA measures the increase in construction completions by tracking the
number of sites completed each year. This measure does not necessarily
demonstrate that the agency is completing construction faster.
� In December 1997, EPA's Office of the Inspector General reported that
while EPA had generally reported the construction completion statistic
accurately, it had at times represented sites where construction was
complete as if (1) all cleanup work was done and (2) the sites could be
returned to economic use. However, cleanup work is not always done and sites
cannot always be returned to economic use when construction is complete. As
a result, the Inspector General concluded that EPA might have been
misinforming the Congress and the public as to the status of cleanup at
Superfund sites. In response to a recommendation by the Inspector General,
EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
issued a memorandum emphasizing the need to use the construction completion
statistic accurately in all documents and not to overstate what it
represents.
� Some stakeholders argue that the measure is not meaningful because it
measures only whether remedies have been constructed, not whether the
cleanup itself is complete and health risks have been eliminated. For
example, the construction of remedies to address contaminated groundwater
may be complete, but the remedies typically must operate for many years
before the site is considered cleaned up.
� EPA disagrees that the construction completion measure is not meaningful
because sites cannot be classified as construction complete until all direct
threats have been mitigated and all long-term threats brought under control.
� EPA has established the number of areas at sites where cleanup goals have
been met as an environmental indicator. Reform managers said that EPA is
considering whether it should use this indicator in addition to construction
completions.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness: An industry representative
agreed that the reform has increased construction completions.
EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to
pursue this reform. However, they predicted that program budget cuts in
fiscal year 2000 could interfere with the agency's ability to meet its
construction completion goals for fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
EPA created the National Remedy Review Board in November 1995 to review
certain proposed cleanup strategies and recommend how or whether they can be
improved. The Board reviews all proposed cleanup strategies whose estimated
costs are (1) more than $30 million or (2) more than $10 million if the
proposed strategy is 50 percent costlier than the least costly protective
alternative that complies with all appropriate environmental laws and
regulations. In fiscal year 1998, the Board also began reviewing certain
proposed removal actions estimated to cost more than $30 million. The
Board's recommendations are not binding, but regional managers must explain,
in a memorandum, how they have considered these recommendations. Table 11
shows EPA's performance goals and measures for this reform.
Table 11: Performance Goals and Measures for Establishing the National
Remedy Review Board
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Select more consistent
Establish a remedies across the
board composed nation Estimated Number of
of EPA managers savings from cleanup
and senior Improve remedies' reviewed proposals
technical and cost-effectiveness proposals: $70.7 reviewed: 43
policy experts million through through the end
to review Ensure that decisions the end of the of the first
proposed are in accordance with first quarter of quarter of
high-cost current laws, fiscal year 2000 fiscal year
cleanup actions regulations, and 2000
guidance
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
To date, 7 of the Board's 43 reviews have resulted in estimated savings
totaling $70.7 million, as table 12 illustrates.
Table 12: Number of Board Reviews and Estimated Savings, Fiscal Years
1996-2000
Dollars in millions
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000a Total
Number of remedies reviewed 11 9 10 11 2 43
Number of reviews resulting in
savings to date 3 3 0 1 0 7
Estimated savings to date $34.2 34.9 0 1.6 0 $70.7
aData are for the first 3 months of fiscal year 2000.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
The Board has reviewed cleanup strategies for sites in all 10 EPA regions
(see fig. 18).
Figure 18: Each Region's Percentage of National Remedy Review Board Reviews
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: Data from EPA suggest that this reform has resulted in
a consistent number of reviews annually since the Board was established in
fiscal year 1996. This consistency is due, at least partially, to budgetary
limitations on the number of reviews the Board can conduct each year.
� Contribution of other factors: The EPA manager for this reform said that
EPA's estimates of cost savings from the Board's reviews do not include any
savings that may have resulted from other factors.
� Regional implementation: All regions have submitted at least one proposed
cleanup strategy to the Board for review. However, because the number of
proposed remedies that qualify for the Board's review is likely to vary
among the regions, EPA's data are insufficient to determine whether the
regions are implementing the reform consistently.
� Performance measurement:
� EPA's performance measures for this reform--the number of proposals
reviewed and the dollars saved--indirectly measure progress toward two of
the reform's goals: selecting more consistent remedies and ensuring that
decisions are in accordance with current laws, regulations, and guidance.
Neither measure indicates whether the remedies have accomplished these
goals, although the Board checks for consistency and conformance during its
review process. The dollars saved measure addresses the cost component of
cost-effectiveness, but not the effectiveness component.
� Developing a mechanism to track the extent to which the Board's reviews
have led to the selection of more consistent remedies could be difficult,
particularly for sites the Board has not reviewed, as the EPA manager for
this reform acknowledges. The Inspector General's review of the Board
concluded that controls to ensure reviews of all qualifying decisions would
be difficult and costly to implement.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness:
� EPA estimates that the average cost of all new Superfund cleanup actions
fell 25 percent from 1987 to 1998. EPA reform managers believe the Board's
reviews have decreased the costs of cleanups, both directly at the sites
with proposed remedies that have been reviewed and indirectly at other sites
where lessons learned from the reviews have been applied. Two industry
representatives agreed that lessons learned from the Board's reviews have
had a positive impact at other sites.
� Three industry representatives said that the potential for the Board to
review a remedy decision has led the regions to share information on
remedies and, in some instances, to push less often for what responsible
parties believe are unnecessarily expensive remedies.
� An industry representative told us that the $30 million cost threshold
excludes too many high-cost remedies from review. EPA's position is that the
threshold was chosen to result in a manageable number of reviews for the
Board, considering its available staff and financial resources. EPA believes
the Board can reasonably manage reviews of about 10 percent of Superfund
cleanup proposals. Because the actual number of reviews has fluctuated
between 9 and 13 percent, EPA has chosen not to lower the threshold.
� Industry representatives also believe the Board's 10-page limit on
responsible parties' technical submissions to the Board does not provide
adequately for addressing complex site issues. Parties would like more
direct input into the Board's reviews. In fiscal year 1997, EPA increased
the limit from 5 to 10 pages in response to concerns expressed by
responsible parties and others and believes that this increase provides for
sufficient input.
EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to
pursue this reform.
Under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, introduced in 1992, EPA
streamlines the steps used to (1) study a site's contamination and design a
cleanup method and (2) assess the site's conditions and risks at various
stages. First, the agency conducts non-time-critical removals, or
substantial, nonemergency, shorter-term cleanup actions at portions of a
site. Second, the agency performs combined site assessments, which join the
preliminary assessment of a site with the site inspection process, and
integrated site assessments, which merge the assessments conducted before a
shorter-term removal action and the longer-term remedial actions at a site.
EPA included the model among the administrative improvements it announced in
June 1993. Table 13 shows EPA's performance goals and measures for this
reform.
Table 13: Performance Goals and Measures for Using the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Number of
Use the removal non-time-critical,
program to conduct Expedite short-term cleanup
nonemergency cleanups Time savings actions, or removals,
cleanup actions at from integrating initiated: 223 through
portions of sites Enhance site assessment fiscal year 1999
that otherwise states' activities
would be addressed roles Number of combined site
by the remedial Cost savings assessments performed:
program and merge Address from integrating 405 through fiscal year
assessments of worst site assessment 1999
conditions and threats activities
risks at selected first Number of integrated site
sitesa assessments performed:
442 through fiscal year
1999
aThe model also included other components, such as efforts to encourage the
use of presumptively preferred remedies at all appropriate sites, increase
states' and communities' participation in the program, initiate enforcement
activities earlier, and address the worst threats first. These efforts,
incorporated into later reforms, are addressed in our summary of those
reforms.
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Through this reform, EPA increased the number of non-time-critical removals,
thereby expediting cleanups and saving money (see fig. 19).
Figure 19: Number of Non-Time-Critical Removals, Fiscal Years 1980-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
In 1995, EPA site managers estimated that non-time-critical removals, on
average, reduce the time and cost of remedial actions from 4 years and about
$4.1 million to 2 years and about $3.6 million, producing savings of 2 years
and about $0.5 million.
During fiscal years 1992-99, there was wide variation in the number of
non-time-critical removals performed across the regions, relative to each
region's share of Superfund sites (see fig. 20).
Figure 20: Each Region's Percentage of National Non-Time-Critical Removals,
Fiscal Years 1992-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites
Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities
List sites as of Sept. 30, 1999.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Assessments
From October 1, 1992 through January 10, 2000, EPA performed combined site
assessments--both the preliminary assessment of a site and the site
inspection process--at 430, or 30 percent, of the 1,421 sites that were
eligible for such assessments. From 1994 to 1999, EPA also performed 442
integrated assessments. These merge the assessments conducted before a
shorter-term removal action and the longer-term remedial actions at a site.
EPA estimates that combined assessments, on average, save about $2,500 and,
more important, shorten the cleanup process by about 11 months. EPA said
that it could not compute cost and time savings for integrated assessments
because they are used at sites that are generally larger, have higher
volumes of waste and more types of contamination, and present more complex
cleanup issues than sites that do not use such assessments. Therefore, the
two types of sites are not comparable.
The number of integrated assessments performed across the regions varied
widely relative to each region's share of Superfund sites, as figure 21
illustrates.
Figure 21: Each Region's Percentage of National Integrated Assessments,
Fiscal Years 1994-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites
Note: National Superfund sites includes final and deleted National
Priorities List sites as of Sept. 30, 1999.
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
� Sustained effects: Through this reform, EPA has increased the number of
non-time-critical removals and combined and integrated site assessments,
thereby reducing the cost and time required for site cleanup activities.
EPA's data suggest that the agency has been able to sustain the reform and
these positive effects.
� Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other
factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.
� Regional implementation: EPA's data and our prior reviews show that the
regions are not consistently using these cleanup tools; however, EPA has not
determined the reasons for this inconsistency, whether the reasons are
valid, or whether the agency needs to improve the reform's implementation.
� EPA's use of non-time-critical removals has been constrained, in part, by
budgetary factors. Specifically, limits on the agency's removal budget and
the higher funding priority given to emergency removals and time-critical
removals have restricted EPA's use of non-time-critical removals. However,
since 1996, the regions have been able to submit requests to a panel of
program experts from all 10 regions and EPA headquarters for funding
non-time-critical removals at Superfund sites that they could not
accommodate within their removal budgets. For the past few years, all such
removal requests have been funded.
� Statutory factors have also constrained EPA's use of non-time-critical
removals, limiting both the time and the money the agency can spend on them.
The limits are generally 12 months and $2 million per removal, although the
regions may request exemptions from these limits. In 1996, we reported that
two regions had performed very few such removals because these regions had
conservatively interpreted the statutory requirements for exemption from the
limits and, therefore, did not pursue removals or seek exemptions.8 The
regions decide whether and how many such removals to propose, and EPA
headquarters does not track consistency among the regions or determine
whether the regions are considering all possible sites for this reform.
� EPA has not tried to assess how well the regions are implementing combined
and integrated assessments or why the rate of implementation has varied so
much among the regions. The agency leaves it up to the regions to decide how
extensively to use the assessments. EPA reform managers offered several
possible explanations for the differences among regions. First, the types of
sites in the regions' workloads vary, and not all types would benefit from
combined or integrated assessments. Second, the regions take different
approaches to conducting site assessment and removal assessment activities.
Third, in some regions, the site assessment and removal programs are more
integrated, making it easier to perform combined and integrated assessments.
Finally, the percentages of sites assessed under state environmental
programs through cooperative agreements with EPA vary from region to region.
� Performance measurement:
� While EPA counts the number of non-time-critical removals initiated each
year, it does not track the dollars and time saved as measures of this
reform's progress. The EPA managers for the reform explained that the
estimates of time and cost savings are based on professional judgment rather
than data.
� EPA does track the time and cost savings from combined site assessment
activities to demonstrate progress toward this reform's goals.
� The number of removals initiated and the number of integrated and combined
site assessments performed do not directly measure EPA's progress toward or
achievement of the reform's goals--expediting cleanups, enhancing states'
roles, and addressing the worst threats first.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness: Industry representatives gave
this reform considerable credit for bringing more flexibility and
cost-effectiveness into the remedy selection process. In particular, they
point to EPA's use of its removal authority for accelerating cleanups.
� Both GAO, in its prior reviews, and EPA have recognized that the current
statutory limits on the time and dollars the agency can spend on
non-time-critical removals hinder the agency's ability to use this tool more
widely for accelerating cleanups.
� In a previous review, we determined that raising the limits to at least 2
years and $4 million would allow for greater use of this tool, although
raising the limits to 3 years and $5 million would provide the maximum
flexibility.
� EPA previously asked the Congress to consider taking legislative action to
raise the statutory limits on these removal actions.
(2) Early and More Effective Community Involvement
To enhance community involvement in the cleanup process, EPA has
� since 1993, encouraged communities to form advisory groups, composed of
citizens affected by hazardous waste sites, by providing administrative
support and guidance;
� since 1988, awarded grants of up to $50,000 to eligible communities
affected by Superfund sites to enable them to acquire independent technical
assistance to help them understand and comment on site-related information
during the cleanup decision-making process; and
� since 1994, provided university educational and technical resources to
help community groups understand the technical issues at Superfund sites not
on the National Priorities List.
Table 14 shows EPA's performance goals and measures for this reform.
Table 14: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Community Involvement
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Number of
community
Encourage and advisory groups
assist community formed: 53
working groups at through fiscal
some sites, award Percentage of year 1999
grants to some surveyed
communities near community members Number of
Superfund sites at seven communities
to hire technical Enhance public Superfund sites receiving
advisers, and participation in the who believe that technical
provide site decision-making EPA is assistance
educational and process effectively grants: 219
technical involving them in
resources to some the Superfund Number of
communities near process: 47 communities
Superfund sites percent receiving
not on the assistance
National through EPA's
Priorities List. Technical
Outreach Services
for Communities
program: 110
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Figures 22, 23, and 24 show EPA's efforts to enhance community involvement
through the use of three initiatives: promoting community advisory groups,
providing technical assistance grants, and conducting technical outreach
activities.
Figure 22: Community Advisory Groups Established, Through the End of Fiscal
Year 1999
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Figure 23: Technical Assistance Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1988-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
Figure 24: Technical Outreach Projects Initiated, Fiscal Years 1994-99
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
As of November 1999, EPA had helped form 53 community advisory groups in
communities affected by Superfund sites. Forty-seven of these groups were
active at that time, and the other six, having completed their work, were no
longer active. Region V had the most sites with these groups (nine), while
Regions I and II had the fewest (two each) (see fig. 25).
Figure 25: Each Region's Percentage of National Community Involvement
Activities, Through the End of Fiscal Year 1999
Source: GAO's presentation of data from EPA.
In addition, through the end of fiscal year 1999, EPA had awarded 219
technical assistance grants totaling almost $16 million to community groups
affected by Superfund sites (only one grant is available per site). Region
IV had the most grant recipients (30), while Region VII had the fewest (4).
Finally, through the end of fiscal year 1999, EPA's outreach program had
provided technical assistance to 110 communities affected by hazardous waste
sites. Region IX provided assistance to the most communities (19), while
Region III provided assistance to the fewest (3).
� Sustained effects: The annual number of (1) new community advisory groups
increased from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 1997 but fell in fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, (2) technical assistance grants awarded peaked in
fiscal year 1992 at 37 but has decreased since then, and (3) new technical
outreach projects increased significantly from fiscal year 1996 through
fiscal year 1998 but fell by more than 50 percent in fiscal year 1999. These
declines may indicate that EPA is not sustaining its implementation of these
reforms.
� Contribution of other factors: According to EPA reform managers, a number
of factors affect the use of community involvement programs, including (1)
communities' level of interest in the programs; (2) the extent to which EPA
has already met communities' needs and interests; (3) the extent to which
activities that communities would become involved in, such as remedial
investigations and studies, have already been completed; and (4) the
resources available for such programs.
� Regional implementation: EPA's data show variations among the regions in
their implementation of these reforms that do not correspond with
differences in the sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA
reform managers, one possible explanation for these variations is that
numerous factors can influence whether communities become involved in the
cleanup process, and these factors may vary considerably among the regions.
EPA reform managers said that although EPA can promote community
involvement, it cannot control a community's decision to participate in its
activities.
� Performance measurement: overall community involvement program:
� In fiscal year 1999, EPA completed the first phase of an ongoing effort to
measure the effects of its overall community involvement program. The review
was conducted at seven sites in four EPA regions and consisted of written
surveys, telephone surveys, and focus groups of local community members who
had shown an interest in their sites. While EPA acknowledged that the
results of the review are not statistically significant, it found that (1)
citizens perceive less risk after receiving an EPA fact sheet or attending a
public meeting about a site; (2) communities that are involved are more
likely to accept EPA's decisions and actions, ultimately making cleanups
easier, faster, and less costly; and (3) nationally, only about half of
those surveyed believe that EPA is effective in involving their communities
in the Superfund process. From this review, the agency concluded that
improvements in its community involvement efforts are needed.
� EPA is currently conducting the second phase of its performance
measurement effort, reviewing the community involvement program at 23
Superfund sites in six EPA regions. The agency expects to present the
results of these reviews in September 2000 as part of its strategic plan.
� Performance measurement: community advisory groups:
� EPA acknowledges that the growing number of community advisory groups does
not demonstrate that these groups are achieving their goals, but the agency
considers this increase an indication that communities find the advisory
groups useful.
� In fiscal year 1998, an informal review of the effectiveness of six
community advisory groups at sites in Region V found that these groups had
(1) provided an effective forum for interested parties to discuss their
views, (2) increased residents' knowledge of issues at sites, (3) often
increased the communities' voice in decisions about the sites, and (4)
improved the relationships between EPA and the communities.
� Performance measurement: technical assistance:
� EPA's Office of the Inspector General completed a review of the technical
assistance grants program in fiscal year 1996 and concluded that the 151
grants awarded through the end of fiscal year 1994 provided support for a
relatively small fraction of the 1,250 Superfund sites where community
groups were eligible to receive grants.
� The Office of the Inspector General identified possible explanations for
the limited grant activity, including the following: (1) EPA had not
assessed the number of communities that wanted grants, (2) EPA had not
effectively publicized the program, and (3) the regions had placed different
levels of emphasis on implementing and promoting the grant program.
� The number of communities that had received technical assistance grants
(219) through the end of fiscal year 1999 was small compared with the number
of Superfund sites that were on the National Priorities List (1,213).
However, EPA's technical assistance program manager told us that not all
communities need technical assistance grants, especially those whose needs
for technical information have been met by EPA's other community involvement
activities.
� Since the Office of the Inspector General completed its review, EPA has
publicized its technical assistance program on the Internet and is
developing new regional guidance intended to ensure consistent regional
implementation of the program.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness:
� According to an industry representative and a state representative,
special interests often dominate community advisory groups; therefore, the
groups do not necessarily represent the needs of the community.
� According to one industry representative, communities continue to find
grant requirements overly burdensome. As a result, some communities avoid
the grant process in favor of seeking technical assistance from responsible
parties. In August 1999, EPA issued a proposed rule to further streamline
its grant application and administrative requirements.
� An industry representative also pointed out that communities often use
technical assistance grants to obtain assistance from technically
unqualified sources; therefore, EPA should enhance the qualifications for
those providing assistance. EPA's proposed rule on streamlining the grant
process includes a new requirement that technical advisers have experience
communicating problems and issues associated with hazardous or toxic waste,
redevelopment, relocation, and health to the public.
EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to
pursue the reform.
In November 1993, EPA began providing selected states, tribes, or
municipalities with up to $200,000 each under cooperative agreements to
assess the extent and nature of any contamination at abandoned, idled, or
underutilized properties (brownfields) and plan cleanup activities. EPA
included this ongoing initiative in its administrative reforms announced in
1995. Table 15 shows EPA's performance goals and measures for this reform.
Table 15: Performance Goals and Measures for Funding Brownfield Assessment
Pilot Projects
EPA's performance measures
Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs
Demonstrate models
of successful
brownfield The number of
properties
Provide funds to redevelopments thatassessed, cleaned Number of
states, tribes, states, tribes, andup, and demonstration
and municipalities localities can use redeveloped and pilot projects
to assess to address the number of funded: 305
contamination at remaining jobs and amount through October
brownfield brownfields of private 1999 (GPRA
properties funding leveraged measure)
Through the reuse
of brownfields, (data
encourage new jobs problematic)
and economic growth
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
As of October 1999, EPA had funded 305 pilot projects. The recipients
voluntarily report data on the results achieved with this funding, and EPA
collects the information in its brownfield management information system.
Using this information, EPA reported, among other things, that
� 3,255 properties have been targeted for assessment, cleanup, or
redevelopment activities;
� 601 assessed properties do not require any cleanup before redevelopment;
� 120 properties have cleanup actions completed;
� 169 properties have redevelopment completed;
� about 1,617 cleanup jobs and $140 million in cleanup funds have been
leveraged at pilot properties; and
� about 4,267 redevelopment jobs and about $1.7 billion for redevelopment
activities have been leveraged.
The EPA managers for this reform also said that the pilot projects are
helping to shift incentives for development away from
greenfields--undeveloped sites in rural and suburban areas--and toward
brownfields.
� Sustained effects: EPA awarded 45 assessment pilot projects in fiscal year
1997, 105 in fiscal year 1998, and 79 in fiscal year 1999.
� Contribution of other factors:
� Contributions from other federal agencies and states have also helped to
achieve the results that EPA attributes to its administrative reform, and
EPA reform managers acknowledged this.
� In April 1999,9 we outlined funds that the Economic Development
Administration within the Department of Commerce and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development were making available to communities for
cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields.
� In April 1997, we reported that states were addressing more and more
brownfield properties through their voluntary cleanup programs.10 Under
these programs, states provide incentives, such as relief from state
liability laws, for parties so that they will voluntarily clean up and
redevelop brownfields.
� Isolating the extent to which EPA's assessment funds contributed to the
cleanup and redevelopment of the brownfield properties in the pilot projects
is not possible.
� Regional implementation: Pilot recipients are chosen on a competitive
basis by a panel consisting of EPA regional and headquarters staff and other
federal agency representatives; individual EPA regions do not decide how
many pilot projects to award. Therefore, we did not assess the level of
regional implementation of this reform.
� Performance measurement:
� EPA's Inspector General, in a March 1998 report,11 credited this
initiative with helping to remove barriers to redevelopment and leveraging
millions of dollars in private funding for redevelopment. However, the
Inspector General noted that at some of the pilot projects reviewed, EPA
funds had relatively little impact on redevelopment.
� While EPA's assessment funds played some role in achieving the results,
EPA's data are problematic. Recipients may voluntarily provide EPA with an
estimate of the number of jobs and additional funding leveraged at
properties assessed with grant funds. But the estimates are not
comprehensive because EPA cannot require the recipients to submit such data,
and EPA cannot verify the consistency and accuracy of these estimates. EPA
recently standardized the measures for which recipients report data. As a
result, the data reported by recipients may become more consistent.
� Views on reform's benefits/effectiveness: An industry representative and
cleanup officials from two states spoke positively of EPA's achievements
under this initiative.
� EPA supports legislation that would provide limited liability protection
for prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and innocent
landowners (those not responsible for or aware of contamination on a
property) as a means to remove liability barriers to the redevelopment of
brownfields. Cleanup officials in two states and two industry
representatives told us they also want these liability protections
established in law.
� The EPA manager for this reform also said the agency supports legislation
that would provide grants to local governments to help them fund loans for
cleaning up brownfield sites.
Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did Not Classify as Both Fundamental
and Measurable
In addition to the 14 Superfund administrative reforms discussed in appendix
I, EPA has initiated 48 other reforms. EPA reform managers classified 6 of
the 48 reforms as fundamental, meaning that they have fundamentally changed
the Superfund program. However, the agency has not been able to establish
performance measures for these reforms. The reform managers did not classify
the remaining 42 reforms as fundamental, although the agency has established
performance measures for some of these reforms.
Measurable
While reporting that they had established performance measures for 14 of the
Superfund administrative reforms that they classified as fundamental (see
app. I), EPA reform managers said they were unable to establish such
measures for 6 other reforms that they also classified as fundamental. These
included, among others, guidance to streamline the selection of cleanup
remedies and procedures for deleting cleaned portions of sites from the
National Priorities List to encourage their reuse. Table 16 lists the six
reforms and provides, for each, (1) a brief description, (2) the goals EPA
expected to achieve, (3) the types of outputs (such as specific products or
activities), (4) the effects that EPA believes cannot be measured at all or
cannot easily be measured, and (5) our observations, where possible, based
on our past work.
Table 16: Six Fundamental Reforms That Lack Performance Measures
Continued
Results and effects of
reform identified by EPA
Reform's
Reform Description of Outputs Nonmeasurable GAO's observations
reform (unverified) effects
goals
EPA stated that
"limited resources
prevent the agency
from gathering
property
transaction data
to quantify deals
facilitated by the
removal of sites
from CERCLIS."
Archive sites in Fact sheet,
which EPA has no "Archival of GAO's report
further interest so Remove the CERCLIS Hazardous Waste:
that stakeholders, stigma Sites" Unaddressed Risks
Refine the such as property associated with at Many Potential
Comprehensive owners and inclusion in Inventory of Reduction in Superfund Sites
Environmental purchasers, can make EPA's database archived perceived (GAO/RCED-99-8,
Response, better decisions of potential sites, potential Nov. 30, 1998)
Compensation, andabout properties Superfund sites organized by environmental recommended that
Liability that were once state and liability at EPA correct errors
Information included in CERCLIS Restore posted on the archived sitesin the CERCLIS
System (CERCLIS) formerly Internet database. The
Scope: Programwide contaminated database included
sites to sites that did not
Number of
Status: Fully beneficial use archived meet the Superfund
implemented/ongoing sites: 31,784 program's
technical
criteria, had
already been
cleaned up, or
were being cleaned
up. In response,
EPA revised its
procedures to
ensure more
accurate CERCLIS
entries.
Potential time
and cost
savings
Guidance
documents, More realistic
Produce guidance including, assumptions
documents on soil Expedite among others, about land use
screening, land use, cleanups Soil
and presumptive Screening Clearer, more
("standardized") Reduce cleanup Guidance: consistent EPA is conducting
Develop guidance remedies costs Users' Guide, records of a review of the
for remedy Land Use in decision use of presumptive
selection Scope: Programwide Promote the CERCLA remedies, to be
consistency in completed in
Remedy Better
Status: Fully remedy Selection understanding fiscal year 2000.
implemented/ongoing selection at Process; and among
sites
Presumptive stakeholders
nationwide Remedies: of EPA's
Policy and remedy
Procedures selection
process and
rationale for
decisions
Restore More favorable
formerly Guidance public EPA believes that
documents the benefits of
Delete portions of contaminated perception of this reform could
sites from the sites to Number of sites with potentially be
National Priorities beneficial use sites with deleted measured by the
List that have been deleted clean portions increase in value
Delete clean cleaned up and are Allay concerns parcels: 16 of parcels that
parcels from the available for of potential Greater have been deleted
National productive use investors or Number of potential for and of surrounding
Priorities List developers who notices of redeveloping properties;
Scope: Programwide may be intent to partially however, EPA has
reluctant to deleted sites
delete clean not used this
Status: Fully undertake parcels from measure because it
implemented/ongoing economic the National Economic and lacks data needed
activity at other benefits
these Priorities for the for meaningful
properties List: 2 community analysis.
According to our
report Superfund:
Progress Made by
EPA and Other
Federal Agencies
to Resolve Program
Management Issues
Establish the Panel (GAO/RCED-99-111,
National Risk-Based established Apr. 29, 1999),
Priority Panel, EPA uses relative
comprising program Number of risk to set
experts from all 10 projects cleanup priorities
regions and reviewed in for sites on the
headquarters, to fiscal year National
evaluate proposed 1997: Over 50 Priorities List.
cleanup actions on However, EPA does
the basis of (1) Number of not necessarily
risks to humans and projects place the riskiest
the ecology; (2) the funded in sites on the list.
stability and fiscal year Many states are
characteristics of 1997: 35, Allocation of now addressing
Promote contaminants; and valued at funding for sites whose risks
risk-based (3) economic, Better protect $185 million response are severe enough
priority-setting social, and human health actions to qualify them
for sites on the programmatic and the Number of according to for listing. EPA
National considerations environment projects the highest is not including
Priorities List funded in priorities these sites in its
Fund cleanup fiscal year first priority-setting
projects, apart from 1999: 25, because it
emergencies and the valued at believes that it
most critical over $100 does not have
removal actions, million enough information
according to the on cleanup
priorities Value of activities at the
established by the projects sites. In response
panel ranked by to our
panel between recommendation
Scope: Programwide August 1995 that its regions
and March work with the
Status: Fully 1999: Over $1 states to obtain
implemented/ongoing billion this information,
EPA has initiated
discussions with
several states on
sharing
information about
cleanup activities
at the riskiest
sites.
Policy
directives
and
memorandums
Number of
sites where
the reform is
being
applied: 232
Greater
Number of incentives for
sites where other
EPA (1) potentially
Reduce offered to responsible
Reduce oversight of litigation and discuss parties to
potentially associated oversight cooperate and EPA believes this
Reduce oversight responsible parties costs expectations settle reform creates
for cooperative that consistently and upcoming opportunities for
potentially perform high-quality Expedite activities More more efficient
responsible work cleanups with cooperative, oversight, but
parties (improve potentially less "data collection
oversight Scope: Programwide Reduce cleanup responsible adversarial is time-consuming
administration) costs for both parties: 167; atmosphere and difficult, and
Status: Fully EPA and and (2) between EPA the results are
implemented/ongoing responsible issued an and not definitive."
parties oversight potentially
bill as responsible
required by parties
the performing
settlement cleanup work
agreement:
196 (both
actions
completed at
161 of these
sites)
Cost savings
at selected
sites
Creation of a
Encourage the use of Increase Superfund Web
electronic tools, com-munication site
such as the among all
Internet, multimedia Superfund Development
Improve computers, and other stakeholders of a home
communication electronic means and improve page for each None
with stakeholders their access to EPA region
Scope: Programwide Superfund
information Number of
Status: Fully visits to
implemented/ongoing Enhance public EPA's Web
participation sites: Data
not provided
Note: Unless otherwise noted, all data presented in this table are current
as of the end of fiscal year 1999.
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
EPA has not characterized the remaining 42 reforms12 as fundamental because
they (1) have not resulted in a new way of doing business for the Superfund
program; (2) are not intended for programwide implementation and have not
been integrated into the base program's operations; and/or (3) are not being
tracked as a measure for key agency or program goals:
� 14 were designed to test new concepts at selected sites, such as options
for expediting settlements with responsible parties and for encouraging
community involvement in enforcement activities;
� 9 were intended to produce guidance that would improve consistency in
remedies, risk assessments, and other aspects of the program; and
� 19 were intended to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of
the program's administration by, for example, establishing an ombudsman in
each region to interact with the public on Superfund issues and allowing
responsible parties to participate in risk assessments.
The 42 reforms cover a wide range of Superfund issues, including the risk
assessments that govern cleanups, the cleanup process itself, EPA's
enforcement activities, and stakeholders' involvement in cleanup decisions.
The 42 reforms also cover a diverse range of goals, such as
� increasing fairness when enforcing the program's liability laws while also
reducing litigation and its associated costs;
� expediting cleanups and reducing cleanup costs;
� better protecting human health and the environment;
� promoting consistency in the remedies selected and in the risk assessments
conducted at sites nationwide;
� encouraging stakeholders' involvement in the risk assessment process;
� enhancing communities', states', and tribes' participation in cleanup
decisions;
� preventing minority and low-income populations from bearing the burden of
pollution;
� restoring formerly contaminated sites to beneficial use; and
� improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Superfund
program.
Even though EPA did not designate these reforms as fundamental, some of them
address issues that have been central to the Superfund reauthorization
debate. Our prior observations on three of these reforms, which we believe
address significant Superfund issues, follow.
As part of its administrative reforms, EPA focussed on improving
contractors' performance by implementing (1) the Superfund Long-Term
Contracting Strategy, which transferred the agency's responsibilities for
contract management from headquarters to the regions, and (2) most recently,
the Contracts 2000 Strategy, an effort to develop a set of contracts that
best meets the program's needs while using best procurement practices.
According to our report Superfund: Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal
Agencies to Resolve Program Management Issues (GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29,
1999), at the time of the report, audits of Superfund contracts--EPA's
primary tool for evaluating the adequacy of contractors' policies,
procedures, controls, and performance--were being conducted more
expeditiously than in 1997. However, we found significant differences
between EPA's estimates of what cleanup work should cost and the final
contract prices for that work, indicating potential problems with the
quality of the agency's estimates. These estimates are important because
they serve as the basis for negotiating contract prices. While EPA has
established a workgroup to assess its cost-estimating procedures and
identify solutions to any problems found, the agency has undertaken similar
corrective measures in the past and has had difficulty fully implementing
and sustaining them. EPA's new Superfund contract management information
system collects cost data, but these data may not be sufficiently specific
or timely. Furthermore, we found that EPA was continuing to pay too high a
percentage of funds to contractors for program support costs, in part
because it was still retaining more contractors than it needed and paying
their overhead costs. Finally, EPA could not provide us with documentation
describing the "Contracts 2000" team's (1) overall strategy for determining
what options it would recommend that the agency adopt to address contracting
issues and (2) time frames for implementing them. We recommended that EPA
(1) develop procedures to ensure that corrective actions will improve
cost-estimates, (2) review whether the regions are consistently implementing
corrective actions, (3) identify cost-effective methods of providing
estimators with the data needed for more accurate estimates, (4) review the
number of contracts needed, and (5) ensure that the Contracts 2000
initiative results in a comprehensive strategy to improve contract
management. EPA agreed with these recommendations and plans to take a number
of actions to implement them. Among other such actions, EPA plans to (1)
develop a corrective action strategy and milestones for preparing
independent government cost estimates, (2) review the regions'
implementation of these corrective actions and the overall quality of their
cost estimates, and (3) continue to work with the regions to organize
information useful in preparing future cost estimates. In addition, EPA has
taken a variety of steps to ensure that the Superfund program has the
appropriate contracting capacity. In July 1999, the agency issued a
Contracts 2000 implementation framework documenting roles and
responsibilities for reviewing and approving the regions' implementation
plans and defining the plans' requirements.
To better recover its costs, EPA revised (1) its systems for tracking cost
recovery data and assigning priorities to cost recovery work and (2) its
methodology for calculating indirect costs--the administrative costs of
operating the program--to increase the percentage of indirect costs that are
recovered. However, according to our report Superfund: Progress Made by EPA
and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve Program Management Issues
(GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29, 1999), EPA has lost the opportunity to recover
about $2 billion in indirect costs from responsible parties because the
methodology it used to calculate these costs excluded a large portion of the
total. EPA has developed a new methodology that more accurately accounts for
its administrative costs. Cost recovery program managers estimated that
using the new methodology could increase recoveries in the cases remaining
to be settled by about $629 million. As of the date of the report, the cost
recovery program had not yet implemented this new methodology because it was
awaiting approval from EPA; the Department of Justice, which litigates cost
recovery cases; and an independent accounting firm hired to review the
methodology. Subsequently, the independent accounting firm and GAO approved
the methodology. However, until EPA uses the new methodology, it will
continue to lose the opportunity to recover these funds. Furthermore, EPA
does not have a cost recovery performance measure that compares, for each
year, the amount of costs it recovers with the amount of costs it had the
potential to recover. Therefore, the agency cannot determine how well it is
performing its cost recovery activities. EPA notes that it cannot control
some factors that influence the amount of costs it can recover, such as the
percentage of cleanups with financially viable responsible parties. We
recommended that EPA apply the new indirect cost-accounting methodology as
soon as it was approved. EPA agreed to do so.
Many states have created voluntary cleanup programs, which rely on
incentives rather than enforcement orders to accomplish cleanups. EPA is
working with states and tribes to promote these programs, including
providing financial assistance to support state voluntary cleanup program
infrastructures and to promote cooperation between states, tribes, and
regions. Our report Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives
to Encourage Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997) found that EPA's
authority under Superfund to ensure that cleanups are protective of human
health and the environment and the federal law's liability provisions can
deter participation in voluntary cleanup programs because potential
volunteers fear they could face expensive and indefinite cleanup liability.
Therefore, states and responsible parties would like to enter into an
agreement with EPA that would limit the federal government's future
interests at sites where voluntary cleanups have been completed. EPA has
been working with states to develop final guidance for negotiating
agreements between EPA and the states. Under these agreements, EPA would
assure volunteers that, except in limited circumstances, it generally would
not plan to take further action at sites in voluntary cleanup programs that
meet the agency's criteria for ensuring effective and protective cleanups.
In the meantime, EPA has issued an interim memorandum outlining six criteria
for voluntary programs that its regions can use to enter into agreements
with states. These criteria, while flexible, are very general and do not
clearly establish EPA's basis for determining whether a voluntary program
will qualify for an agreement in the future. We recommended that EPA work
with states to more clearly define the criteria that state voluntary cleanup
programs should meet to obtain an agreement limiting EPA's involvement at
sites, particularly in the areas of monitoring after cleanup, acceptable
oversight practices, and public participation. EPA agreed and drafted
guidance that met our recommendations. However, after many discussions with
various stakeholders, EPA concluded that there was no consensus on critical
aspects of the guidance. The agency decided, instead, that its 1996 guidance
to the regions was appropriate for future negotiations involving state
voluntary cleanup programs.
Table 17 lists the 42 reforms that EPA officials did not characterize as
having fundamentally changed the Superfund program. The table provides (1) a
brief description of each reform; (2) the goals EPA expected to achieve
through the reform; (3) the types of outputs (such as specific products or
activities) or outcomes (measurable results) that EPA uses to measure the
success of the reform; (4) where appropriate, the data measuring the effects
of the reform; and (5) any effects of the reform that EPA believes cannot be
measured or cannot easily be measured. Because of the large number of these
reforms, we did not attempt to verify their effects as identified by EPA.
Table 17: List of 42 Reforms That EPA Did Not Specifically Identify as
Having Fundamentally Changed the Superfund Program
Continued
Results and effects of reform identified by EPA
Reform Description of reform Reform's goals Outputs (unverified)a Outcomes Nonmeasurable
(unverified) effects
Pilot projects (13)
Evaluate options for jointly
funding cleanup projects
with potentially responsible
parties, quantify the cost
implications of these Settlement
options, and pilot-test facilitated
demonstration projects
designed to identify Increase program's Number of
Evaluate mixed opportunities for fairness Number of settlements settlements
funding policy streamlining the reached: 6 None identifiedpotentially
joint-funding Reduce litigation increased
decision-making process and associated costs
Equity
Scope: Pilots potentially
improved
Status: Pilots completed/
results incorporated into
program
Number of pilot sites:
15 in 10 regions
Pilot-test several
procedures to (1) improve Number of sites where
the quality and timeliness potential de minimis
of searches to identify parties (contributors
potentially responsible of small waste
parties, (2) make the volumes) were notified
Increase program's
Pilot early information obtained more fairness within 12 months of
searches for accessible, and (3) identify starting the search: 0 "Lessons
a larger universe of
Reduce litigation None identifiedlearned" applied
potentially potentially responsible and associated costs Number of sites where programwide
responsible partiesparties earlier in the other parties were
process notified within 18
Expedite settlements
months of starting the
Scope: Pilots search: 5
Status: Pilots completed/ Number of additional
results incorporated into parties identified
program early in the search
process: 150 at one
pilot site
Number of pilot sites:
18 in 8 regions
Pilot-test revised Number of pilot sites
settlement procedures to where EPA achieved
determine the feasibility of early de minimis
(1) achieving early settlements: 8
settlements with de minimis
parties (contributors of Number of pilot sites
small waste volumes), (2) where EPA reached
identifying early any issues Increase program's early ability-to-pay
relating to parties' ability fairness settlements: 5
Expedite to pay for cleanup, and (3) "Lessons
settlements giving involved parties an Reduce litigation Number of de minimis None identifiedlearned" applied
opportunity to designate and associated costs parties with which EPA programwide
others as potentially settled at pilot
responsible parties Expedite settlements sites: 1,397 through
the end of fiscal year
Scope: Pilots 1998
Status: Pilots completed/ Amount recovered by
results incorporated into EPA in expedited de
program minimis and
ability-to-pay piloted
settlements: $22.7
million
Number of pilot sites:
9
Number of pilot sites
where EPA issued
allocation reports: 6
At selected sites, test a
cost-allocation approach Number of pilot sites
under which potentially where EPA reached
responsible parties may settlements: 7
settle their liability on Percentage of
the basis of their share of Number of pilot sites parties at
the cleanup costs using (1) where EPA settled pilot sites
a neutral party, known as an Increase program's before allocation indicating that
Allocate costs allocator, selected by the fairness reports were issued: 7 transaction "Lessons
according to parties to allocate the costs were learned" applied
parties' liability costs, and (2) a nonbinding Reduce litigation Average time spent to lower than programwide
out-of-court allocation and associated costs complete the traditional
process allocation process at contribution
pilot sites with litigation
Scope: Pilots issued reports: 20 costs: 75
months percent
Status: Pilots ongoing/
results incorporated into Examples of legal
program costs at pilot sites:
$48,000 per party;
$421,000 per site for
EPA and Department of
Justice staff time;
$193,000 per site for
the allocator
Test innovative approaches
for community involvement in Higher-quality
technical settlement issues, work products
including (1) increasing and greater
public involvement in community
removal actions being acceptance and
implemented by potentially support
responsible parties and (2) Number of pilot sites resulting from
where potentially
Encourage communityfacilitating communication responsible parties community input
involvement in between the potentially Enhance public agreed to conduct None identified
enforcement responsible parties and participation cleanup actions or Some delays
local citizens to develop a resulting from
consensus on a site's future investigations: 13 in increased
land use 9 regions community
involvement
Scope: Pilots
"Lessons
Status: Pilots ongoing/ learned" applied
results incorporated into programwide
program
Defer placement of certain
sites on the National Guidance documents
Priorities List so that
states or tribes can oversee Number of states with
which EPA has signed Greater
Integrate federal, cleanup actions at these Enhance agreements to defer state/tribal
state, and tribal sites conducted and funded participation of listing of sites: 12 None identifiedparticipation
site management by potentially responsible states and tribes in states in 6 regions and better site
parties the cleanup process
management
Scope: Pilots Number of sites
covered by deferral
Status: Ongoing agreements: 31
Number of
states/tribes with
Pilot test the funding of block grant
block grants to give states cooperative
and tribes greater agreements: 15
flexibility in using funds Enhance More efficiency
participation of
Fund state/tribal to conduct or provide states and tribes in Reduction in time and flexibility
block grants assistance for Superfund the cleanup process needed to prepare and None identifiedin the use of
cleanup activities process paperwork: 85 cooperative
percent in Illinois agreements
Scope: Pilots
Time saved by this
Status: Ongoing regulatory change: 3
months at one Illinois
site
Increase the role of states Number of pilot sites:
and tribes in selecting the 11 in 6 regions
remedies at National
Priorities List sites, when Number of sites where
the state (or tribe)
Involve states and possible and consistent with Enhance has the lead role in
tribes in the applicable laws and participation of cleanup responses,
Superfund remedy regulations governing states and tribes in including the remedy None identifiedNone identified
selection process cleanups the cleanup process selection: Evaluation
Scope: Pilot of states' remedy
selection data, which
Status: Fully EPA began collecting
implemented/ongoing in fiscal year 1998,
ongoing
At the regional level, test
the use of approaches for More favorable
involving community Number of sites where perception of
EPA successfully
Involve community stakeholders in the involved the community EPA and the
stakeholders in theSuperfund remedy selection Enhance public in remedy selection: 6 Superfund
Superfund remedy process participation None identifiedprocess
selection process Compendium of best
Scope: Pilots Better remedy
practices produced
selection
Status: Fully (6/99) process
implemented/completed
In coordination with the
U.S. Public Health Service,
establish the Medical
Assistance Plan to respond
to the health concerns of
underserved citizens living
near hazardous waste sites Development of
by providing for, among Superfund Medical
other things, (1) physicians Assistance Work Group
trained in environmental (SMAWG) (phased out)
Provide training issues and available to Prevent
and health serve the affected minority/low-income Number of sites
assistance to communities, (2) medical populations from selected for Medical None identifiedNone identified
communities testing, (3) technical bearing the brunt of Assistance Plan
assistance to local agencies pollution program testing: 1
and health care providers,
and (4) environmental health Amount designated for
education to health care implementing the plan
providers at the site: $400,000
Scope: Pilot
Status: Pilot completed
(Reform phased out after
completion)
Fund pilot projects designed
to promote community
involvement and
partnerships, relying on a Enhance public
Promote community coordinator in each region participation Number of brownfield Brownfield
outreach for to oversee brownfield pilot assessment pilot redevelopment
brownfield projects and initiate other Restore formerly projects funded: 305 None identifiedprocess affected
redevelopment brownfield activities contaminated sites through October 1999 by citizens'
to beneficial use involvement
Scope: Pilots
Status: Pilots ongoing
Using classroom instruction Funded the National
and hands-on work Institute of
experience, conduct Environmental Health
interagency pilot projects Science's Minority
to train and employ Worker Training
residents of distressed Program Number of
neighborhoods located near Prevent students
Provide job Superfund and brownfield minority/low-income Number of Super Job trained: 75 Good will
training and sites and provide outreach, populations from Training Initiative fostered in
development curriculum, and technical bearing the brunt of pilots: 9 Number of communities
assistance to community pollution students
colleges located near the Number of grants employed at
pilot sites awarded for health and sites: about 25
safety training
Scope: Pilots programs: 20
Status: Ongoing
Underwrite the use of
certain promising approaches Number of sites that
for a limited number of participate in
Share the risks
Use risk-sharing toprojects, agreeing to share associated with risk-sharing and
encourage the up to 50 percent of the cost implementing eventually use the
implementation of of an innovative remedy if innovative technologies selected: None identifiedNone identified
innovative it fails and subsequent technologies Data not provided
technology remedial action is required
Number of risk-sharing
Scope: Pilots Expedite cleanups agreements negotiated:
4
Status: Ongoing
Program guidance
(8)
Develop remedy selection
rules to flag potentially
"controversial" cleanup Stakeholders'
decisions for senior Guidance documents, confidence in
managers to review, including Rules of the remedy
providing a consolidated Thumb for Superfund selection
Establish remedy guide to procedures for Promote consistency Remedy Selection and process enhanced
selection "rules ofconsultation between in remedy selection Consolidated Guide to None identified
thumb" headquarters and the regions at sites nationwide Consultation More consistency
on remedy selection issues Procedures for in remedy
Superfund Response selection
Scope: Programwide Decisions
Some costs
Status: Fully reduced
implemented/ongoing
Develop documents to (1)
clarify the role of cost in
developing cleanup options Stakeholders'
and selecting remedies as confidence in
established in existing law, the remedy
regulation, and policy, and selection
Fact sheet entitled process enhanced
Clarify the role of(2) promote the use of Promote consistency The Role of Cost in
cost existing policies and in remedy selection the Superfund Remedy None identifiedMore consistency
guidance to ensure at sites nationwide
cost-effectiveness Selection Process in remedy
selection
Scope: Programwide
Some costs
Status: Fully reduced
implemented/ongoing
Emphasize the importance of
maintaining appropriate
national consistency in the
Superfund remedy selection
process and encourage A more
Develop a directiveprogram managers to make Promote consistency Directive entitled predictable
on national full use of existing tools in remedy selection National Consistency remedy selection
consistency in and consultation at sites nationwide in Superfund Remedy None identifiedprocess that
remedy selection opportunities to promote Selection more readily
consistency addresses
national goals
Scope: Programwide
Status: Fully
implemented/ongoing
Develop summary sheets to
demonstrate the context,
basis, and rationale for the Clearer and more
remedy selected at each consistent
site, including the (1) records of
relationship between the Promote consistency decision on
selected
Clarify informationsite's risks and response in remedy selection Guidance on records of remedies
on remedy selectionactions and (2) costs and at sites nationwide decision issued (8/99) None identified
benefits of cleanup
alternatives Stakeholders'
confidence in
Scope: Programwide the remedy
selection
Status: Fully process enhanced
implemented/ongoing
Guidance document
entitled Risk
Assessment Guidance
for Superfund: Human
Health Evaluation
Manual (Part D):
Standardized Planning,
Reporting, and Review
of Superfund Risk
Assessments
Develop guidance that Ensure that risk
establishes national assessments are (1) Number (and Better
criteria for the regions to more transparent, percentage) of new decision-making
use in planning, reporting, clear, consistent remedial for response
and reasonable; (2)
Establish national and reviewing risk well scoped and well investigation/ actions at
criteria for risk assessments to ensure that designed; (3) in a feasibility study risk None identifiedSuperfund sites
assessment they are consistent standard assessments performed
using a generic risk Clearer risk
Scope: Programwide presentation format; assessment statement assessments
and (4) easier for
of work: Data not
Status: Fully decision-makers at provided Resources saved
implemented/ongoing Superfund sites to
review
Number (and
percentage) of new
remedial
investigation/
feasibility study risk
assessments performed
using standard tables
for reporting risk
data: Data not
provided
Update and standardize risk
assessment guidance,
especially in areas where Ensure the quality,
science and policy have consistency, and
advanced over the past reliability of risk Guidance documents
under development
Develop guidance toseveral years, such as assessments
standardize risk exposure assessment, human Meetings with None identifiedNone identified
assessments health toxicity assessment, Promote greater stakeholders to seek
and risk communication community
involvement in input on priorities
Scope: Programwide designing risk for improvement
assessments
Status: Not yet fully
implemented/ongoing
Issue guidance on
establishing appropriate
cleanup levels and levels of
concern (soil screening
levels) for common chemical Reduce time and
contaminants in soil and costs of cleanups Development of a
Develop soil complete a pilot study of Soil screening useful tool for
screening levels soil screening levels at 10 Promote more guidance None identifiedinitially
sites effective and assessing a
consistent cleanups site's risks
Scope: Programwide nationwide
Status: Fully
implemented/ongoing
Use public-private
partnerships to demonstrate
and evaluate innovative
hazardous waste treatment Number of
technologies and increase partnerships: 5
their acceptance by (1) active/2 inactive or
targeting contamination completed
problems affecting both
public and private sites, Better protect human Number of technology Better
health and the information for
Promote the use of (2) evaluating technology environment cost and performance decisionmakers
innovative databases, and (3) trying to case studies: 82 by None identifiedabout
technology improve the dissemination of Expedite cleanups EPA; 140 by the appropriate
information on treatment Federal Remediation
technologies to common data Technologies remedies for
repositories Reduce cleanup costs Roundtable sites
Scope: Programwide Remediation technology
databases established:
Status: Ongoing--effort 4
adopted as an
"administrative improvement"
in 1993
Replaced/superseded
reforms (2)
Issue guidance (1)
authorizing the regions to
identify uncontaminated land Completion of the More favorable
parcels on or adjacent to Federal Register public
National Priorities List notice and perception of
sites to facilitate the implementing guidance sites with
transfer, development, or deleted parcels
redevelopment of these Number of sites from
Clarify National parcels; (2) setting forth Restore formerly which clean parcels Greater
Priorities List the factual basis for contaminated sites had been deleted as of None identifiedpotential for
sites assurances that parcels are to beneficial use March 1999: 16 redevelopment of
not contaminated; and (3) partially
specifying the consultation Number of sites for deleted sites
and coordination required which notices of
intent to delete clean Positive
Scope: Programwide parcels had been economic and
issued as of March other effects on
Status: Fully 1999: 2 the communities
implemented/ongoing
Give private parties an
opportunity to seek EPA's
approval of an allocation
that covers 100 percent of Transaction
the costs at a site, with Facilitate costs for all
the understanding that an settlements Number of sites where parties reduced
approved allocation can private-party
Adopt private-partyserve as the basis for a Reduce litigation allocations have been Settlements
allocations settlement and transaction adopted: 3 settlements None identifiedfacilitated
costs before this reform was
Scope: Programwide merged with the orphan Parties'
Increase program's share reform concerns about
Status: Fully fairness fairness
implemented/completed addressed
(incorporated into orphan
share compensation reform)
Other reforms (19)
Issue guidance on
presumptive remedies
(standardized remedies for
certain types of sites), Guidance documents, More effective
including those for Expedite cleanups including Presumptive and consistent
Streamline/expeditemunicipal landfills and Promote more Remedy for CERCLA remedy selection
the cleanup processvolatile organic compounds effective and Municipal Landfill None identified
in soil Sites and Users' Guide Time and/or
consistent cleanups
for the VOCs in Soil costs of
Scope: Programwide nationwide Presumptive Remedy cleanups reduced
Status: Fully
implemented/ongoing
Issue guidance and make
information available to
address property owners' Guidance and other
concerns about, among other documents, including
issues, federal liens on Guidance on Agreements
contaminated property and with Perspective
the potential liability of Purchasers of
Contaminated Property
Promote greater prospective purchasers of Increase program's and a model agreement
fairness for Superfund sites fairness
Superfund site Increase through None identifiedNone identified
owners Scope: Programwide Reduce litigation fiscal year 1998 in
and associated costs
Status: Fully the number of
implemented/ongoing prospective purchaser
(Reform partially replaced agreements following
by a later reform intended the issuance of the
to remove liability barriers guidance and model
through agreements with agreement: 100
prospective purchasers)
Direct staff to evaluate all
decision documents for the
possibility of
disproportionate adverse
effects on minority and
low-income communities in an Prevent Policy directive
effort to ensure that all minority/low-income
Implement an waste programs treat populations from Consultation with the
environmental environmental justice as an bearing the brunt of National Environmental None identifiedNone identified
justice strategy integral part of EPA's pollution Justice Advisory
policies, guidance, and Council during policy
regulations Expand meaningful development
public participation
Scope: Programwide
Status: Fully implemented/
ongoing
Encourage states,
territories, and tribes to
clean up contaminated sites
under their own laws by, for
example, working with state
associations to develop
criteria for deferring sites
to states, initiating pilot
Defer certain site deferral projects in Enhance
categories to qualified states, and participation of Guidance document None identifiedNone identified
states establishing a workgroup to states and tribes in
address deferral questions the cleanup process
and assess early state-led
cleanups
Scope: Programwide
Status: Fully implemented/
ongoing
Improve contractors'
performance by implementing
(1) the Superfund Long-Term
Contracting Strategy, which
shifts responsibility for
contracts and contract Reduction in program
management from headquarters support costs,
to the regions, and, (2) measured as a
most recently, the Contracts Improve program's percentage of total
Improve contract 2000 Strategy to develop a efficiency and invoice costs, over
management set of contracts that best effectiveness time: Data not None identifiedNone identified
meet the program's needs provided
while using best procurement Reduce cleanup costs
practices Long-Term Contracting
Strategy; Contracts
Scope: Programwide 2000 Strategy (2/98)
Status: Fully implemented/
ongoing--effort adopted as
an "administrative
improvement" in 1993
Work with the Department of
Defense to accelerate
cleanup work at military Project work
bases designated for closure (time) Better community
or realignment and to reductions: and interagency
address property transfer, over 250 work working
redevelopment, and community Expedite cleanups years through relationships
Accelerate cleanup involvement issues Input to Department of fiscal year
at bases designated Restore formerly Defense guidance and 1998 Better
for closures Scope: Programwide (108 contaminated sites joint policy documents relationships
installations) to beneficial use Project costs between the
avoided: $250 Department of
Status: Fully million throughDefense and
implemented/ongoing--effort fiscal year states
adopted as an 1998
"administrative improvement"
in 1993
Issue regional
compliance-monitoring
guidance and implement
regional compliance-tracking
systems to strengthen
enforcement through Improve program's Regional
oversight of potentially efficiency and compliance-monitoring
Improve compliance responsible parties' effectiveness guidance
monitoring compliance None identifiedNone identified
Better protect human Regional
Scope: Programwide health and the compliance-tracking
environment systems
Status: Fully implemented/
ongoing--effort adopted as
an "administrative
improvement" in 1993
Improve systems for tracking Percentage of
cost recovery data and for targeted sites
assigning priorities to cost valued at more
recovery work and revise than $200,000
indirect cost accounting that were
methodologies to increase addressed in
Improve the the percentages of indirect Results of fiscal year
effectiveness of costs that are recovered Reduce cleanup costs cost-recovery planning 1998: 100 None identified
cost recovery and targeting efforts
Scope: Programwide Costs recovered
through
Status: Fully implemented/ settlements
ongoing--effort adopted as through fiscal
an "administrative year 1998:
improvement" in 1993 About $2.4
billion
Encourage the regions to
consider means of
streamlining the grant
process, such as providing
advance funding for
technical assistance grants
and authorizing training for
grant recipients, to make Number of technical
resources available for assistance grants
communities to acquire awarded since 1988:
Fund technical independent technical Enhance public Over 202
assistance grants assistance that could help participation None identifiedNone identified
them understand and comment Publication in the
on information related to Federal Register of a
Superfund sites (e.g., rule to streamline the
records of decision on grant process, 8/24/99
cleanup remedies)
Scope: Programwide
Status: Not yet fully
implemented
Reduce the risks associated
with using innovative
technologies by providing
indemnification coverage for
the prime contractor as well
as the innovative technology Policy directive
Use risk-sharing tocontractor, thereby
encourage the use protecting both from Number of requests for
of innovative third-party liability claims Expedite cleanups expanded None identifiedNone identified
technologies if the technology does not indemnification
perform as expected coverage received: 0
Scope: Programwide
Status: Fully
implemented/ongoing
Work with states and tribes
to promote programs that Number of states that
encourage private parties to have implemented
voluntarily clean up voluntary cleanup
contaminated sites by, for programs: 44
example, (1) providing
financial assistance to Number of states that
support an infrastructure Enhance have signed agreements Ability of
for state voluntary cleanup participation of with EPA regions on state/tribal
programs and to promote states and tribes in supporting voluntary programs to
Support voluntary cooperation among states, the cleanup process cleanups and assess, clean
cleanup programs tribes, and regions, and (2) redeveloping None identifiedup, and recover
issuing guidance on drafting Restore formerly brownfields: 14 as of costs at
memorandums of agreement contaminated sites December 1999 brownfield sites
between EPA regions and to beneficial use enhanced
states in support of Amount distributed
voluntary cleanup programs since 1997 to support
an infrastructure for
Scope: Programwide state/ tribal
voluntary cleanup
Status: Fully programs: Over $29
implemented/ongoing million
Reference documents, Number (and
including Risk percentage) of
Assessment Guidance new remedial
Develop a reference document for Superfund, Volume investigation/
to support and promote 1, Human Health feasibility
public participation in the Encourage Evaluation Manual study starts inRemedies
Encourage communityrisk assessment process stakeholders' (Supplement to Part which the improved
participation in involvement in the A): Community community has
risk assessments Scope: Programwide risk assessment Involvement in been Community
process Superfund Risk substantively relations
Status: Fully Assessments involved in improved
implemented/ongoing designing the
Video and brochure on risk
citizens' involvement assessment:
in risk assessments Data not
provided
Issue a directive (1)
confirming that responsible Number (and
and qualified parties can percentage) of
perform risk assessments at Policy document: new remedial
most sites and (2) removing Encourage Revised Policy on investigation/
Allow potentially the requirement that the stakeholders' Performance of Risk feasibility
responsible partiesregions consult with involvement in the Assessments During study starts
to perform risk headquarters before allowing risk assessment Remedial where the risk None identified
assessments these parties to perform process Investigations/ assessment was
risk assessments Feasibility Study performed by
Expedite cleanups (RI/FS) by Potentially the potentially
Scope: Programwide Responsible Parties responsible
parties: Data
Status: Fully not provided
implemented/ongoing
Technical Review
Establish an expert Workgroup and Lead More
workgroup to standardize Sites Workgroup opportunities
risk assessment approaches for the public
for lead-contaminated Better protect human Guidance document: to interact with
Superfund sites and provide health and the Revised Interim Soil EPA
Establish an expertadvice to regional risk environment Lead (PB) Guidance for
workgroup on lead assessors and site managers CERCLA Sites and RCRA None identifiedFewer questions
Make risk Corrective Action
raised on
Scope: Programwide assessments more Facilities consistency
consistent
Status: Fully Other guidance Use of better
implemented/ongoing documents and science advanced
site-specific
consultations
Develop guidance promoting
the concept of a single
regulator for federal sites,
specifying roles and
outlining the general
principles and guidelines
that federal and state
Less duplication
Establish a lead partners should follow in Improve program's of effort and
regulator for overseeing cleanup efficiency and Guidance documents None identifiedinefficiency in
federal sites activities, thereby effectiveness the use of
simplifying the cleanup
process and allowing for resources
more efficient staffing
Scope: Programwide
Status: Fully
implemented/ongoing
Revise guidance to (1) Amended policy
ensure that response actions document: Revised
taken at sites up to the Hazard Ranking System:
time of their placement on Evaluating Sites After
the National Priorities List Waste Removals
are considered in
determining whether the Number of sites Incentives
Consider the sites qualify for the list considered as low provided for
response actions and (2) incorporate greater priorities for parties to
taken at sites flexibility in evaluating Reduce litigation placement on the conduct early
before placing themwhether sites should be and associated costs National Priorities None identifiedresponse actions
on the National removed from the list to List or classified as before sites are
Priorities List encourage early cleanup "no further remedial placed on the
actions, especially by action planned" National
private parties because prior cleanup Priorities List
activities, such as
Scope: Programwide waste removal, were
considered in setting
Status: Fully priorities: Data not
implemented/ongoing provided
Develop guidance for the
regions that will address
(1) the role of risk and
other factors (such as cost,
community concerns, Interim final guidance
environmental justice, and
cultural considerations) in Number of federal
setting priorities at facility agreements Three regions
(III, IX, and X)
Promote risk-based federal facilities, (2) the revised to reflect assisted in
priority-setting Department of Defense's and Better protect human changes in priorities setting
for federal the Department of Energy's health and the within Department of None identifiedrisk-based
facilities approaches to evaluating environment Defense and Department priorities at
risks at sites, and (3) the of Energy facilities
appropriate role of (number of agreements Navy Superfund
stakeholders in setting and number of sites
priorities milestones revised):
Data not provided
Scope: Programwide
Status: Not yet fully
implemented/ongoing
For each unilateral
administrative order
issued, the number of
parties identified at
the site, the number
of parties excluded,
and the documentation
of reasons for
exclusion: Data not
Issue unilateral provided (enforcement
administrative orders for data confidential)
site cleanups to the largest Regions'
manageable number of Number of orders willingness to
parties, after considering independently reviewed issue unilateral
evidence of the parties' by EPA headquarters to administrative
liability, financial ensure that they had orders to a
larger number of
Ensure more viability, and contribution Increase program's been issued to all potentially
equitable issuance to a site's waste, and fairness appropriate parties responsible
of unilateral establish procedures (including None identifiedparties
administrative requiring regional staff to Reduce litigation governmental increased
orders document their reason(s) for and associated costs entities): 180
proposing that certain
parties be excluded from Number (and Parties'
administrative orders percentage) of orders perception of
that have required EPA regions'
Scope: Programwide documentation: Data fairness in
not provided issuing orders
Status: Fully (enforcement data improved
implemented/ongoing confidential)
Number (and
percentage) of cases
where reasons cited
for excluding parties
were consistent with
EPA's policy: Data not
provided (enforcement
data confidential)
Establish an ombudsman in
each region to facilitate
the resolution of regional
issues or problems by Number of cases
serving as a point of for which EPA
contact for the public and conducted Public's
Establish ombudsmenhelping to resolve Enhance public Appointed an ombudsman investigations perceptions of
stakeholders' concerns participation in each region and mediations:EPA's decisions
Data not improved
Scope: Programwide provided
Status: Fully
implemented/ongoing
a Unless otherwise noted, all data are current as of the end of fiscal year
1999.
Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our overall objective was to determine the effectiveness of the 62
administrative reforms EPA has introduced to improve the Superfund program.
Specifically, we sought to (1) determine the demonstrated results of these
reforms and evaluate the quality of the measures the agency uses to gauge
the results and (2) identify legislative changes to the program that either
the agency or key stakeholders--including, among others, representatives of
parties responsible for cleanups, environmental groups, and states--believe
are still necessary. In determining the scope of our review, we asked the
agency to identify those reforms that it considers to be key to the
Superfund program. The agency identified 14 of the 62 reforms that it
considers to have fundamentally and measurably changed the program, and we
focused our detailed audit work on them. This report primarily summarizes
the results of our review of the 14 reforms as a group. However, we also
provide information on the remaining 48 reforms (see app. II).
To obtain information on the 62 reforms, we developed a set of questions on
their nature, characteristics, scope of implementation, performance
measures, and results. We submitted these questions to the Senior Process
Manager for Reforms in the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response within
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and to the principal
reform manager in the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement in EPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the agency's headquarters in
Washington, D.C. These reform managers coordinated responses throughout the
agency and provided us with detailed information on each of the reforms. We
also reviewed EPA's annual reports on the reforms and various information
and documents relating to the reforms available on EPA's Superfund Web site.
To determine the overall effects of key reforms on the Superfund program, we
first asked these reform managers to identify the reforms that they regarded
as "fundamental" or otherwise significant in some way. We also asked them to
explain why they classified these reforms as fundamental or significant. In
their responses, the reform managers identified 20 reforms that they
considered to have fundamentally changed the Superfund program. According to
these reform managers, EPA regards a reform as having produced a
"fundamental change" if it (1) results in a new way of doing business for
the Superfund program; (2) is intended for programwide implementation and
has been integrated into the base program's operations; and (3) where
appropriate, is being tracked as a measure for key agency or program goals.
We also asked the reform managers to identify the fundamental reforms that
have produced measurable (quantifiable) outcomes. Of the 20 reforms, these
reform managers characterized 14 as having produced measurable outcomes, and
we focused our review of the reforms' effects on the program on these 14.
To obtain the information we needed on these 14 reforms, we submitted
additional detailed questions on each reform to the agency's reform
managers. In these questions, we asked for further information on (1) each
reform's goals, (2) the extent to which EPA regions are implementing the
reform, (3) the performance measures EPA uses to track progress toward
achieving the reform's goals, and (4) the results of each reform. We also
asked EPA to provide supporting data and documentation to verify this
information. To determine the extent of the reforms' implementation and
their effects, we reviewed and analyzed the information provided by EPA. In
addition, we reviewed and synthesized information from key published and
internal EPA documents, as well as reports, studies, and analyses by other
organizations that have examined the effects of the reforms. We did not
attempt to verify the data and analyses provided. Furthermore, we
interviewed representatives of various industry, environmental, and
government groups, including, for industry groups, the Chemical
Manufacturer's Association, the Superfund Settlements Project, the National
Association of Realtors, and the National Federation of Independent
Business; for environmental groups, Environmental Defense, the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, and Resources for the Future; and for state and
local government groups, the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials, the Committee for the National Institute for the
Environment, the National Association of Counties, the National Association
of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the National Governors
Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the congressionally
chartered National Academy of Public Administration. We also talked to staff
in EPA's Office of the Inspector General and reviewed a number of the
Office's reports on Superfund. In addition, in commenting on some of the
reforms, we relied on our past work on a variety of Superfund issues.
To identify changes to the Superfund program that EPA and other stakeholders
believe are still necessary, we reviewed and analyzed EPA's written
responses to the questions we submitted on each reform. We also talked to
representatives from the industry, environmental, and state and local
government groups identified above to discuss their views on changes needed
in the Superfund program.
We conducted our work for this review between July 1999 and May 2000 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
David G. Wood (202) 512-6111
Eileen Regan Larence (202) 512-6510
In addition to those named above, Vincent P. Price, David Goldstein, and
Michael Ibay made key contributions to this report.
(160500)
Table 1: Fourteen Fundamental/Measurable Reforms and Their Output and
Outcome Measures 10
Table 2: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution 24
Table 3: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting "Enforcement First" 28
Table 4: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Settlements With Small
Waste Contributors 31
Table 5: Performance Goals and Measures for Reaching Agreements With
Prospective Purchasers 35
Table 6: Performance Goals and Measures for Providing Compensation for
Orphan Shares 39
Table 7: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of
Site-Specific Accounts 43
Table 8: Performance Goals and Measures for Revised Guidance on Settlements
With Miniscule Waste Contributors 47
Table 9: Performance Goals and Measures for Updating Remedy Decisions 49
Table 10: Performance Goals and Measures for Increasing Construction
Completions 53
Table 11: Performance Goals and Measures for Establishing the National
Remedy Review Board 57
Table 12: Number of Board Reviews and Estimated Savings, Fiscal Years
1996-2000 58
Table 13: Performance Goals and Measures for Using the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model 61
Table 14: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Community Involvement
67
Table 15: Performance Goals and Measures for Funding Brownfield Assessment
Pilot Projects 74
Table 16: Six Fundamental Reforms That Lack Performance Measures 79
Table 17: List of 42 Reforms That EPA Did Not Specifically Identify as
Having Fundamentally Changed the Superfund Program 88
Figure 1: Comparison of Four Regions' Superfund Workloads and Rates of
Implementation for Three Reforms 15
Figure 2: Superfund Liability Cases Initiated Using Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Fiscal Years 1993-98 25
Figure 3: Each Region's Percentage of National Superfund Cases in Which
Alternative Dispute Resolution Was Used, Fiscal Years 1993-98 26
Figure 4: Percentage of New Cleanup Actions Funded by Responsible Parties,
Fiscal Years 1987-99 29
Figure 5: Average Percentage of New Cleanups Funded by Responsible Parties,
by Region, Compared With the National Average, Fiscal Years 1995-99 30
Figure 6: Number of De Minimis Settlements, Fiscal Years 1987-99 32
Figure 7: Each Region's Percentage of National De Minimis Settlements,
Fiscal Years 1987-99 33
Figure 8: Number of Prospective Purchaser Agreements Completed, Fiscal Years
1989-99 36
Figure 9: Each Region's Percentage of National Prospective Purchaser
Agreements, Fiscal Years 1989-99 37
Figure 10: Number of Orphan Share Compensation Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99
40
Figure 11: Each Region's Percentage of National Orphan Share Compensation
Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99 41
Figure 12: Number of Special Accounts Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99 44
Figure 13: Each Region's Percentage of National Special Accounts
Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National
Superfund Sites 45
Figure 14: Number of Cleanup Remedy Updates per Year, Fiscal Years 1982-99
50
Figure 15: Each Region's Percentage of National Cleanup Remedy Updates,
Fiscal Years 1996-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 51
Figure 16: Number of Sites Designated as Construction Complete, Fiscal Years
1981-99 54
Figure 17: Each Region's Percentage of National Construction Complete Sites,
Fiscal Years 1981-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 55
Figure 18: Each Region's Percentage of National Remedy Review Board Reviews
58
Figure 19: Number of Non-Time-Critical Removals, Fiscal Years 1980-99 62
Figure 20: Each Region's Percentage of National Non-Time-Critical Removals,
Fiscal Years 1992-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 63
Figure 21: Each Region's Percentage of National Integrated Assessments,
Fiscal Years 1994-99, Compared With Its Percentage of National Superfund
Sites 64
Figure 22: Community Advisory Groups Established, Through the End of Fiscal
Year 1999 68
Figure 23: Technical Assistance Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1988-99 69
Figure 24: Technical Outreach Projects Initiated, Fiscal Years 1994-99 70
Figure 25: Each Region's Percentage of National Community Involvement
Activities, Through the End of Fiscal Year 1999 71
1. Responsible parties include present (and some former) site owners,
operators, transporters, and persons who arrange for the treatment or
disposal of hazardous substances.
2. EPA defines brownfields as abandoned or underused facilities, usually in
industrial or commercial areas, where redevelopment is hampered by real or
perceived environmental contamination.
3. Superfund: Information on EPA's Administrative Reforms (GAO/RCED-97-174R,
May 30, 1997).
4. GAO and EPA have, in the past, disagreed on whether the methodology that
EPA uses as a basis for saying that the program is cleaning up sites faster
is appropriate (see Superfund: Times to Assess and Clean Up Hazardous Waste
Sites Exceed Program Goals (GAO/T-RCED-97-69, Feb. 13, 1997), Superfund:
Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites
(GAO/RCED-97-20, Mar. 31, 1997), and Superfund: Duration of the Cleanup
Process at Hazardous Waste Sites on the National Priorities List
(GAO/RCED-97-238R, Sept. 24, 1997)). We have not assessed the agency's
estimate of cost savings.
5. Superfund: Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve
Program Management Issues (GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29, 1999), and Superfund:
Half the Sites Have All Cleanup Remedies in Place or Completed
(GAO/RCED-99-245, July 30, 1999).
6. State voluntary cleanup programs offer parties incentives, such as state
liability protection, to voluntarily address waste sites.
7. Including, among others, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-315) and the Civil Justice Reform Act (P.L. 101-650).
8. Superfund: Non-Time-Critical Removals as a Tool for Faster and Less
Costly Cleanups (GAO/T-RCED-96-137, Apr. 17, 1996).
9. Environmental Protection: Agencies Have Made Progress in Implementing the
Federal Brownfield Partnership Initiative (GAO/RCED-99-86, Apr. 9, 1999).
10. Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to Encourage
Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997).
11. Brownfields: Potential for Urban Revitalization, EPA, Office of the
Inspector General (E1SHF8-11-0005-8100091, Mar. 27, 1998).
12. One of the reforms in the group of 14--addressing options for private
party allocations of cleanup liability--and 1 of the reforms in the group of
9--developing guidance on how to address uncontaminated parcels on or
adjacent to Superfund sites--were included in the first round of reforms but
were subsequently replaced or incorporated into the later two rounds.
*** End of document. ***