Superfund: Status, Cost, and Timeliness of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups
(Letter Report, 09/21/94, GAO/RCED-94-256).

In fiscal years 1987-93, 60 percent of the $10 billion earmarked for the
Superfund program went to the contractors to perform site cleanups. The
largest portion of cleanup spending went toward remedial or long-term
cleanup efforts, including site studies, remedial designs, and
construction of the cleanup remedy. During this period, spending on the
construction phase overtook spending for site studies. Forty percent of
the funds obligated for construction went to 13 sites--just seven
percent of the sites receiving such funding during the period. Although
cleanup work has been fully completed for only 52 sites, about half of
the 1,320 Superfund sites have moved beyond the initial study phase and
into the design and construction phases of the cleanup. Nevertheless,
150 of the sites that have been in the Superfund program for at least
eight years have not progressed beyond the initial study phase; at nine
of these sites, the study phase has not yet begun. GAO's analysis of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data shows little time difference
in the cleanup work financed by EPA and that financed by parties
responsible for the contamination. Attorneys at the Justice Department
and EPA believe that the limits on the timing of judicial review of
EPA's cleanup decisions have been effective in discouraging or quickly
eliminating legal challenges that might otherwise have delayed cleanups.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-256
     TITLE:  Superfund: Status, Cost, and Timeliness of Hazardous Waste 
             Site Cleanups
      DATE:  09/21/94
   SUBJECT:  Site selection
             Environmental monitoring
             Waste management
             Environmental law
             Environment evaluation
             Funds management
             Environmental policies
             Environmental engineering
             Appellate procedure
             Hazardous substances
IDENTIFIER:  Superfund Program
             EPA National Priorities List
             EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
             Liability Information System
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1994

SUPERFUND - STATUS, COST, AND
TIMELINESS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
CLEANUPS

GAO/RCED-94-256

Superfund:  Cost and Timeliness of Cleanups


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
  CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
     Liability Act
  CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
     Liability Information System
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NPL - National Priorities List
  OU - operable unit
  RA - remedial action
  RD - remedial design
  RI/FS - remedial investigation and feasibility study
  ROD - record of decision
  SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-257698

September 21, 1994

The Honorable John D.  Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy
 and Commerce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Al Swift
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
 and Hazardous Materials
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives

Almost 14 years after the Superfund program was created, concern
remains focused on the cost and slow rate of cleanups at hazardous
waste sites.  Hundreds of billions of federal dollars will be needed
to clean up thousands of such sites across the country, according to
recent estimates.  As the Superfund law is being reauthorized, the
Congress has the opportunity to assess the program's current status
and future direction.  To assist this assessment, you asked that we
provide data on (1) how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
used funds obligated for the Superfund program in fiscal years 1987
through 1993; (2) the status of cleanup work at each Superfund site,
including federal facilities; (3) the time differences in the cleanup
work financed by EPA and parties responsible for the contamination,
usually private enterprises; and (4) the extent to which limits on
judicial review of EPA's cleanup decisions have eliminated cleanup
delays. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

In fiscal years 1987 through 1993, 60 percent of the $10 billion
obligated for the Superfund program went to the contractors that
perform site cleanups.  The largest portion of cleanup spending went
toward remedial or long-term cleanup activities, which include site
studies, remedial designs, and construction of the cleanup remedy. 
During this period, spending on the construction phase of this
process overtook spending for site studies.  Funding for construction
increased from 46 percent of the total annual remedial cleanup
spending in fiscal year 1987 to 78 percent in fiscal year 1993.  We
found that 40 percent of the funds obligated for construction went to
13 sites--just 7 percent of the sites that received such funding
during the period. 

While cleanup work has been fully completed for only 52 sites, as of
September 30, 1993, significant progress had been made in moving
about half of the 1,320 Superfund sites beyond the initial study
phase and into the design and construction phases of cleanup. 
Nevertheless, we found that 18 percent (150) of the sites that have
been in the Superfund program for at least 8 years have not
progressed beyond the initial study phase (that is, decisions on the
type of cleanup to perform have not yet been completed).  At 9 of
these 150 sites, the study phase has not yet begun.  In general,
progress at federal facilities has lagged behind progress at
nonfederal sites. 

Our analysis of EPA's data shows little time difference in the
cleanup work financed by EPA and the cleanup work financed by parties
responsible for the contamination.  On average, the cleanup times for
both categories of sites are longer than the agency's current goals
for completing this work.  However, EPA's data do indicate a trend
toward even longer average cleanup times for projects yet to be
completed, despite the agency's numerous efforts to shorten these
times. 

Attorneys at the Department of Justice and EPA believe that the
limits on the timing of judicial review of EPA's cleanup decisions
have been effective in discouraging or quickly eliminating legal
challenges that might otherwise have delayed cleanups.  They report
that since the Congress explicitly limited judicial reviews in 1986,
only three site cleanups have been delayed by legal challenges. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980 to clean up highly
contaminated hazardous waste sites.  The act gave EPA the authority
to clean up these sites or to compel the parties responsible for the
hazardous wastes to perform the cleanup.\1 CERCLA established a $1.6
billion trust fund, financed primarily by taxes on crude oil and
certain chemicals, for EPA to implement the program and pay for
cleanups.  In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) set new requirements and authorized an $8.5 billion increase
in the trust fund.  In 1990, the Congress reauthorized CERCLA through
1994 and added $5.1 billion to the trust fund authorization without
making any substantive changes to the program. 

The Superfund program has two basic types of cleanups:  short-term
cleanups (removal actions) and long-term cleanups (remedial actions). 
In the Superfund removal program, actions are taken to mitigate
immediate and significant threats, such as those stemming from
contaminated drinking water or unrestricted access to hazardous waste
sites.  These actions are generally of a short-term and emergency
nature, such as providing alternative drinking water supplies and
cleaning up chemical spills caused by transportation accidents. 

To perform a remedial action, EPA must go through the formal process
of placing a site on its National Priorities List (NPL).\2 EPA may
then go through a series of steps to perform the cleanup: 

  Step 1:  Conduct a site study to identify wastes and to evaluate
     and select a remedy for the contamination identified.  This
     phase is known as the remedial investigation and feasibility
     study (RI/FS or site study). 

  Step 2:  The period of time between the end of the study phase
     (RI/FS) and the beginning of the next phase (remedial design)
     can be a significant factor in the length of time expended on
     the cleanup process.  Therefore, in our measurements of the time
     elapsed in the process, we have included this period as a
     separate step. 

  Step 3:  Design methods for implementing EPA's chosen remedy.  This
     phase is known as remedial design (RD). 

  Step 4:  Construct and implement the remedy.  This phase is known
     as remedial action (RA). 

Any or all of the cleanup phases may be paid for and performed by a
responsible party under a legally enforceable agreement with EPA. 
Cleanup work at a specific site is sometimes broken into separate
projects (referred to as operable units).  Thus, a site may have a
site study ongoing for one of its operable units and design work
ongoing for another.  Once EPA and the state in which the site is
located have determined that all work at a site has achieved the
desired cleanup goals, the site can be removed (deleted) from the
NPL. 

Since early in the history of the Superfund program, various parties
have challenged EPA's actions in court.  Judicial review of these
challenges before cleanup actions are complete may delay cleanup. 
Delays may occur because a court orders EPA not to take a challenged
action, because agency staff are diverted from cleanup activities to
prepare for litigation, or because EPA must revise or postpone key
cleanup decisions as the result of a challenge.  Affected parties
have challenged everything from EPA's initial decision to address a
site through the Superfund program, to the agency's chosen remedy for
a site.  EPA's cleanup activities at some sites have been the subject
of multiple legal challenges.  However, in the first years of the
Superfund program, most courts ruled that they could not review these
challenges. 

To further ensure that legal challenges would not delay Superfund
cleanups, the Congress enacted statutory limits on the judicial
review of challenges.  Section 113(h) of CERCLA, enacted by the
Superfund amendments of 1986, bars responsible parties from obtaining
judicial review of EPA's decisions until the parties have received
and complied with a cleanup order, or until the government has taken
some other enforcement action in court that would compel the parties
to perform or pay for the challenged activity.  Section 113(h) also
bars other affected parties, such as citizens groups and states, from
obtaining a review of EPA's actions until those actions are complete. 


--------------------
\1 Responsible parties may include waste generators, waste haulers,
and site owners and operators. 

\2 The NPL consists of two types of sites:  proposed and final.  EPA
first proposes a site and then, after receiving public comments,
either lists it as final or removes it from the list. 


   TRENDS IN PROGRAM FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In fiscal years 1987 through 1993, certain funding trends were
apparent in the Superfund program.  First, most Superfund obligations
went to contractor-performed cleanup studies and the construction of
remedies.  Second, during this period EPA shifted the remedial
program's emphasis and funding away from studying site conditions and
toward completing the construction of remedies.  A small number of
sites consumed most of the construction money.  Third, the removal
program's costs increased, largely because EPA recently began moving
remedial action funds into the removal program. 

As shown in figure 1, in fiscal years 1987 through 1993 EPA obligated
$4.5 billion, or 45 percent, of the total $10 billion obligated in
the Superfund program for the contractors that perform site cleanup
work, both for remedial and removal actions.\3 Another 14 percent of
the funds was used to cover other directly related cleanup costs,
such as the salaries of the EPA personnel who oversee this work; 14
percent was used for enforcement activities.  The rest was used for
research and development, laboratory analysis, and general
administrative program costs. 

   Figure 1:  Total Distribution
   of Superfund Program Funds in
   Various Categories, Fiscal
   Years 1987 Through 1993

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EPA's financial management systems data, as of Dec.  1993. 

We also found that site studies no longer make up the program's chief
annual cleanup expense.  Rather, the program's focus and funding have
turned to later stages of the cleanup process.  (See fig.  2.) In
fiscal year 1987, site studies accounted for 41 percent of the funds
that went to the EPA contractors that perform site studies and that
design and construct cleanup remedies.  By fiscal year 1993, site
studies accounted for only 12 percent of these funds, and the
construction phase accounted for 78 percent.  This change reflected
the agency's decision in fiscal year 1989 to constrain dollars spent
on site studies and to focus funding on constructing remedies.  As
figure 3 shows, the annual number of site study starts peaked in
fiscal year 1987, while the number of remedial action starts
generally rose through fiscal year 1993. 

   Figure 2:  Annual Obligations
   for Site Studies, Remedial
   Designs, and Remedial Actions,
   Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1993

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of EPA's financial management systems data,
as of Dec.  1993. 

   Figure 3:  Annual Number of
   Site Studies and Remedial
   Actions Started, Fiscal Years
   1987 Through 1993

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of EPA's data. 

In reviewing the funding for remedial actions, we found that a very
small number of expensive cleanup projects accounted for a large
percentage of this budget.  For example, in fiscal years 1987 through
1993, EPA obligated $1.1 billion, or over 40 percent, of the $2.6
billion obligated to construct cleanup remedies at 13 sites--or about
7 percent of the more than 200 sites that received such funding
during this time.\4 This pattern of expenditures raises the question
of whether the risks posed by these 13 sites warrant this large share
of EPA's cleanup funds.  We recently reported that risk plays only a
minor role in the setting of EPA's priorities.\5

We also identified another funding trend:  growing expenditures for
the removal program.  In fiscal years 1991 through 1993, the removal
budget increased from $192 million to $272 million, or 42 percent. 
Most of this increase was the result of EPA's shifting of moneys from
the remedial action budget to the removal budget in fiscal years 1992
and 1993.  In these two fiscal years, EPA transferred $109.5 million
of its remedial money to pay for removal work to facilitate more
expeditious cleanup work.  EPA used this remedial action funding to
perform an additional 34 removal actions at 29 NPL sites. 


--------------------
\3 See app.  I for a more detailed breakdown of Superfund obligations
and disbursements in fiscal years 1987 through 1993. 

\4 The 13 sites are Baird and McGuire, MA; Montclair/West Orange
Radium Site, NJ; Lipari Landfill, NJ; Bridgeport Rental and Oil
Services, NJ; Helen Kramer Landfill, NJ; Combe Fill South Landfill,
NJ; Drake Chemical, PA; Moyers Landfill, PA; LaSalle Electric
Utilities, IL; Sikes Pit, TX; Bayou Bonfouca, LA; Texarkana Wood
Preserving Company Site; TX; and Denver Radium Site, CO. 

\5 Relative Risk in Superfund (GAO/RCED-94-233R, June 17, 1994). 


   PROGRESS IS UNEVEN IN SITE
   CLEANUP WORK
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Progress is being made in cleaning up NPL sites, but almost 14 years
after the program's inception, the actual number of sites deleted
from the NPL remains small.  (See fig.  4 and app.  II.) As expected,
the sites listed before 1987 have progressed farther in the cleanup
process than those listed after that time, although almost one-fifth
of these pre-1987 listed sites are still in the study phase.  In
addition, we found that the initial site study phase of the cleanup
process has not been started for nine sites listed before 1987. 
Cleanup progress at federal facilities is lagging behind progress at
nonfederal facilities. 

   Figure 4:  Status of Cleanup
   Work for 1,320 NPL Sites, as of
   September 30, 1993

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Sites have been placed in categories according to operable
unit that has made the farthest progress in the cleanup process. 

Source:  EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) End-of-Fiscal-Year 1993 data. 

Generally, as figure 5 shows, the sites listed before 1987 are
farther in the cleanup process than those listed later.  However, we
did find that almost 20 percent (150) of the 813 sites listed before
1987 are still in the initial study phase, and EPA headquarters
officials could not explain the slow progress being made at these
sites.  In fact, for nine of these sites, studies had not even begun. 
(See app.  III for a list of these sites.) The slow progress of
cleanups raises two questions:  First, what is the potential harm of
letting these nine sites wait years before site studies begin? 
Second, if no potential for harm exists, why are they still on the
NPL?  At some of the nine sites, immediate threats have been reduced
by interim measures, such as the removal of drums containing
contaminated materials and restrictions placed on site access. 

   Figure 5:  Comparison of the
   Status of Cleanup at NPL Sites
   Listed Before and After 1987,
   as of September 30, 1993

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Sites have been placed in the above categories according to
the status of work at a site's operable unit that has gone farthest
in the cleanup process. 

\a Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  EPA's CERCLIS End-of-Fiscal-Year 1993 data. 

In general, cleanups at federal facilities have not progressed as far
as those at nonfederal sites.  For example, no federal facility has
been deleted from the NPL, and as of September 30, 1993, remedial
action construction at all operable units had been completed at only
one federal facility.  To some extent, the slower progress at federal
facilities results from their later entry into the Superfund program
and their larger size.  Most federal facilities have been placed on
the NPL since the Congress enacted statutory mandates in 1986 to
accelerate the identification and cleanup of federal hazardous waste
sites.\6 In addition, they are often much larger (averaging 5.9
operable units) than nonfederal sites (averaging 1.8 operable units). 
A federal facility is usually defined as an installation or
landholding, including all contiguous land, owned by a U.S. 
department or agency.  In contrast, a nonfederal NPL site is usually
an area, not necessarily all the land within a facility, containing
hazardous wastes.  Interagency coordination and other management
problems also have contributed to the slow pace of federal facility
cleanups.  We intend to explore the progress of federal facility
cleanups in future reviews. 


--------------------
\6 In Superfund:  Backlog of Unevaluated Federal Facilities Slows
Cleanup Efforts (GAO/RCED-93-119, July 20, 1993), we reported that
the listing of federal facilities was being delayed by a backlog of
sites awaiting evaluation for entry on the NPL and by the low
priority EPA and some federal agencies have placed on this effort. 


      INACCURACIES WERE FOUND IN
      EPA'S DATA ON THE STATUS OF
      CLEANUP WORK AT NINE SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

In attempting to determine why certain sites listed before 1987 had
not entered the site study phase, we found some errors in EPA's data
on site status.  According to EPA's CERCLIS\7 data, 16 sites listed
before 1987 had not started the study phase at the end of fiscal year
1993.  Yet, in discussions with state and EPA officials, we found
that 2 of these 16 sites had actually started the site study phase
and 5 had progressed to the construction phase.  (See app.  III for
more details on these sites.) For five of these seven sites, states
are managing site cleanup work that is being performed by responsible
parties.  EPA regional staff had not been collecting and updating
information on these state-managed sites because the regions cannot
use these sites to meet numerical performance goals (such as starting
or completing a certain number of site studies).  These performance
goals are used to evaluate the regions' performances and to allocate
their budgets.  In May 1994, EPA directed the two regions with the
five misclassified sites that we identified to update CERCLIS on
these sites and in the future to ensure accurate reporting of the
status of all state-managed sites.  However, as of July 1994 EPA had
not requested its regions to review the accuracy of their CERCLIS
data on other state- managed sites.  At the other two sites, where
EPA was responsible for the cleanup, site study work had actually
started, but EPA regional staff had not updated CERCLIS to accurately
reflect the sites' status. 


--------------------
\7 CERCLIS is the data base developed to assist EPA's headquarters
and regional staff in managing the Superfund program and reporting on
the program's accomplishments. 


   CLEANUP TIMES ARE SIMILAR FOR
   FUND- AND RESPONSIBLE
   PARTY-FINANCED WORK
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Our analysis of EPA's data shows little difference in the average
times taken to complete each of the four phases of the cleanup
process that we measured for both fund- and responsible
party-financed cleanup work.\8 It also shows that these average times
often exceed the agency's goals, or time frames, for completing this
work.  EPA's data also reveal substantial differences among EPA's
regions in the average times taken to complete the same individual
phases, although EPA has not examined the reasons for such
differences.  Most significantly, EPA's data show a trend toward even
longer cleanup times, in spite of the agency's past and current
efforts to expedite the cleanup process. 

As shown in figure 6,\9 the biggest difference in average cleanup
times for fund- and responsible party-financed work was that
responsible parties took about 5 months longer to complete the site
study phase, while fund-financed contractors took about 5 months
longer to construct the remedy.  In addition, responsible parties
took a few months longer to start designing the cleanup remedy after
the remedy had been selected (at the end of the study phase).  During
this period, EPA negotiates with responsible parties to pay for the
most expensive part of the cleanup process--the remedial design and
construction work.  Thus, the responsible parties' longer startup
time is not surprising.  However, EPA officials noted that
negotiations with responsible parties--sometimes very protracted ones
that fail to produce a settlement--also take place during this time
for some fund-financed design and construction projects. 

   Figure 6:  Average Times Taken
   to Complete Different Cleanup
   Phases, as of September 30,
   1993

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  These averages are for operable units, not sites, and for
projects started and completed after the passage of SARA. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of EPA's CERCLIS data. 


--------------------
\8 The four phases we measured include the three major phases of the
cleanup process--site study, design, and remedial action
construction--and the time between the end of the study phase and the
beginning of the design phase. 

\9 For information on the specific average times and the number of
cleanup projects upon which each average is based, see app.  IV. 


      AVERAGE COMPLETION TIMES ARE
      LONGER THAN EPA'S GOALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

According to EPA's data, the average completion times for three of
the four phases we measured exceed the agency's goals for completing
each phase of the work by over half a year.  For example, as shown in
table 1, fund- and responsible party-financed site studies are
taking, on average, more than half a year longer to complete.  In
addition, both fund- and responsible party-financed design work is
taking almost twice as long to complete as EPA would like.  For the
remedial action construction phase, fund-financed work is taking
almost a year longer than the agency's goal, while the responsible
parties are much closer to meeting this goal. 



                           Table 1
           
            Comparison of Average Completion Times
                       With EPA's Goals

                          (In Years)

                                        Fund-    Responsible
                                     financed       parties'
Cleanup phase       EPA's goal   average time   average time
---------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Site study                 2.0            2.6            3.0
Site study                  .5             .5             .7
 complete to
 remedial
 design start
Remedial design            1.0            1.8            1.7
Remedial action            1.5            2.2            1.8
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These times are for operable units, not sites. 


      AVERAGE COMPLETION TIMES
      VARY AMONG REGIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

We found some notable differences among EPA's 10 regions in the
average times taken to complete the four phases we measured.\10 For
example, average times for completing site studies varied by more
than a year and a half--from 2 years in one region to 3.7 years in
another region.  EPA's data show similar variations in the regions'
average completion times for the other three phases we measured.  For
instance, on average, remedial designs completed in two EPA regions
took 1.4 years, while they took 2.4 years in another region. 

Although EPA headquarters officials have been providing the regions
with information on the regions' average times twice a year, they
have not examined the reasons for such differences and have no plans
to do so at this time.  However, the agency has performed other
special analyses on factors affecting the timeliness of cleanup work,
such as the reasons for delays in starting the design phase.  EPA
officials agreed it would be useful to examine these regional
differences and to identify the "best practices" that could be
transferred to other regions to shorten cleanup times.  They believe
that more information, particularly on good management practices,
needs to be exchanged and are in the process of exchanging such
information. 


--------------------
\10 See app.  V for a table showing the average times that EPA's 10
regions have taken to complete each of the four phases we measured. 


      EPA'S DATA INDICATE TREND
      TOWARD LONGER CLEANUPS,
      DESPITE EFFORTS TO SHORTEN
      THEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

EPA's data indicate a trend toward longer cleanup times for projects
still under way, even though the agency in the last 5 years has
initiated several major efforts to expedite the process.  At the end
of fiscal year 1993, the average times for fund- and responsible
party-financed projects that were still under way were slightly
longer than the average times for completed projects. 

The longer durations for ongoing work are consistent with the results
of our work showing that future Superfund cleanup work will be
significantly more difficult than already completed work because the
work involves more complex sites.\11 For example, we reported that 64
percent of the already completed sites disposed of untreated waste
off-site, while 70 percent of the sites still in process will require
waste to be treated to reduce its toxicity, mobility, or volume.  In
addition, two-thirds of the already completed sites ranked in the
lower half of the NPL, which broadly indicates that the sites
represent a lower risk, while the sites still in process are
distributed throughout the NPL. 

In response to widespread criticism of the slow pace of cleanup work,
EPA has undertaken several initiatives to speed up the process.  For
example, in 1989 EPA conducted a major review of the Superfund
program, referred to as the "90-Day Study." This study identified the
need to accelerate the cleanup process as one of the program's major
goals. 


--------------------
\11 Superfund:  Cleanups Nearing Completion Indicate Future
Challenges (GAO/RCED-93-188, Sept.  1, 1993). 


   FEDERAL ATTORNEYS BELIEVE
   JUDICIAL REVIEW BAR HAS BEEN
   EFFECTIVE IN LIMITING CLEANUP
   DELAYS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Department of Justice (DOJ) and EPA attorneys believe that the limits
on judicial review have been very effective in discouraging or
quickly eliminating challenges to EPA's cleanup activities.  While
the courts have historically disallowed early challenges to EPA's
cleanup decisions, these attorneys also maintain that the statutory
limits have made it even more difficult for parties to succeed with
these challenges, thereby discouraging parties from bringing these
suits.  Most of the challenges we reviewed had little effect on
cleanup schedules.  According to government attorneys, only three
site cleanups have been delayed by legal challenges since the
statutory bar was enacted. 

As of September 1, 1993, approximately 62 separate lawsuits had
challenged EPA's actions at Superfund sites before those actions were
complete.  Seventeen of these lawsuits specifically challenged a
removal action or remedy.  (See app.  VI for a list of these
challenges.) Although any type of challenge could delay cleanup
activities, our review, as requested, focused on challenges to
remedies and removals, which may have the greatest potential to delay
cleanup activities.  We interviewed government attorneys about 10
such challenges--the 4 that occurred before the statutory bar was
enacted and a judgmental sample of 6 cases that occurred after the
bar was enacted (including all sites identified by government
attorneys as having experienced cleanup delays as the result of this
type of legal challenge).\12

Three challenges in our sample delayed cleanup activities by more
than 1 month.  (See table 2.) Two of the four challenges that were
brought before the statutory bar was enacted delayed cleanup
activities--one by 2 to 6 months and the other by 40 months.  The
third challenge, brought after the bar was enacted, delayed cleanup
activities by 6 to 8 months.  All three challenges were initially
reviewed by federal courts but were later dismissed by the same court
or an appeals court.  (App.  VII illustrates how legal challenges at
these three sites and a fourth site, the West Dallas Lead Superfund
site in Texas, affected EPA's cleanup activities.)



                           Table 2
           
                Cleanup Delays Caused by Legal
                          Challenges

                                                    Estimate
                                                    d delay
                                                    (in
Case name                  Site name/state          months)
-------------------------  -----------------------  --------
Challenges brought before the statutory limits were enacted
------------------------------------------------------------
Dickerson & Amtreco,       Dickerson Post Site, GA  40
Inc.
v. EPA

J.V. Peters & Co. v. EPA   J. V. Peters Site, OH    1

Jefferson County, MO v.    Minker/Stout/Romaine     2-6
EPA                        Creek Site, MO

Lone Pine Steering         Lone Pine Landfill, NJ   0
Committee v. EPA


Challenges brought after the statutory limits were enacted
------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama v. EPA             Geneva Industries/       6-8
                           Furhmann Energy Site,
                           TX

Arkansas Peace Center v.   Vertac Superfund Site,   Less
EPA                        AK                       than 1

Bryant v. EPA              Texarkana Wood           0
                           Preserving Company
                           Site, TX

City of Monroe, LA v.      West Dallas Lead         Less
EPA\a                      Superfund Site, TX       than 1

Cooper Industries, Inc.    Sturgis Municipal        Unknown
v.                         Wellfield Site, MI
EPA

Fike v. U.S.               Fike Chemical Site, WV   0
------------------------------------------------------------
\a This was only one of several legal challenges that delayed the
cleanup of the West Dallas Lead site; it produced relatively minor
delays in comparison with other challenges. 

The DOJ official responsible for overseeing the government's response
to legal challenges noted that the review bar is most effective when
it discourages parties from filing challenges.  Although it is
impossible to predict how many challenges would have occurred if the
statutory bar had not existed, DOJ and EPA attorneys believe that the
bar has discouraged many parties from challenging EPA's actions.  The
DOJ official reported that one anticipated challenge to EPA's site
access was averted simply by providing the potential claimant with an
explanation of the statutory limitation on judicial reviews. 


--------------------
\12 The sample excluded challenges addressing EPA's activities at
multiple sites. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Since the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
in 1986, EPA has shifted the Superfund program's remedial budget away
from studying hazardous waste conditions at sites to constructing
remedies that will protect human health and the environment.  During
this time, EPA has also concentrated a large portion of the remedial
action budget on cleaning up a very small number of sites. 

Furthermore, EPA has selected the cleanup remedies for a portion of
at least half of the NPL sites.  However, a large number of the sites
listed on the NPL before 1987 have not yet moved beyond the initial
study phase.  EPA headquarters officials do not have a full
explanation of why these sites have not made more progress. 

Our work revealed errors in EPA's data on the status of cleanups at
nine NPL sites that resulted in underreporting the status of cleanup
work at these sites.  On the basis of our limited review, we do not
know how widespread this problem may be.  But the Congress needs
accurate information to adequately oversee the program and to decide
what future investment is needed. 

EPA's data reveal a disturbing trend:  longer average cleanup times
for ongoing projects than for those already completed.  Despite EPA's
efforts to expedite cleanups, cleanup times may grow still longer
because of the greater complexity and different characteristics of
these ongoing projects. 

With few exceptions, the statutory limits appear to have accomplished
the Congress's goal of ensuring that EPA's cleanup activities are not
hindered by legal challenges. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To ensure that expeditious cleanup actions are being taken at
Superfund sites listed before 1987 and the accuracy of EPA's data on
site cleanup status, we recommend that the EPA Administrator take the
following actions: 

  Determine why no site studies have been started at nine sites
     placed on the National Priorities List before 1987 and the
     reasons for slow progress at other pre-1987 sites that have not
     progressed past the initial study phase.  Consideration should
     be given to removing sites from the list if they do not pose a
     significant threat. 

  Ensure the accuracy of the Superfund data base on state-managed
     sites by directing the regions to confirm the accuracy of the
     data with appropriate state officials, correct inaccurate data,
     and ensure accurate and timely reporting in the future. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We discussed a draft of this report with the Design and Construction
Management Branch Chief and other officials in EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response and the Superfund Accounting Branch
Chief in the Office of the Comptroller, who believed the report
provided a fair and accurate portrayal of the issues discussed.  We
incorporated, where appropriate, their suggested revisions, including
a discussion of their current efforts to exchange information among
regions on ways to expedite cleanups.  However, as requested, we did
not obtain written agency comments on the draft report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We conducted our review between March 1993 and July 1994, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
(See app.  VIII for further discussion of our audit methodology.)

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly 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 to the Administrator, EPA.  We will make copies available
to others upon request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-6112 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IX. 

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection
 Issues


SUPERFUND OBLIGATIONS AND
DISBURSEMENTS, FISCAL YEARS 1987
THROUGH 1993
=========================================================== Appendix I

                              (Dollars in millions)


                                                                    Total, 1987-
Activity      1987    1988    1989    1990    1992    1992    1993            93
----------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------------
RI/FS\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation  $135.5       $       $       $  $ 66.0  $ 76.3  $ 58.5       $ 706.4
 s                   147.0   113.0   110.1
Disburseme    79.6   111.4   104.7    92.2    93.5    74.0    52.1         607.5
 nts

Remedial Design\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation    38.8    53.3    40.2    48.4    52.0    64.1    50.9         347.7
 s
Disburseme    10.9    20.8    31.2    30.1    43.8    58.7    45.5         241.0
 nts

Remedial Action\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation   154.0   421.4   385.8   343.0   345.6   520.4   380.7       2,550.9
 s
Disburseme    46.3    47.4   151.2   175.8   283.8   273.6   233.9       1,212.0
 nts

Other remedial\b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation   118.3   119.3   171.3   131.7   145.2   136.2   143.4         965.4
 s
Disburseme    82.3   106.0   118.3   120.8   108.7   121.1   138.5         795.7
 nts

Removal\c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation   146.5   155.2   180.9   183.7   191.7   248.3   272.3       1,378.6
 s
Disburseme    87.4   126.0   131.5   146.4   169.7   192.5   229.4       1,082.9
 nts

Enforcement\d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation   110.8   124.0   192.2   203.2   243.8   262.0   250.2       1,386.2
 s
Disburseme    69.1   113.3   106.7   168.9   216.7   225.7   231.9       1,132.3
 nts

Research & development\e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation    44.3    55.8    68.9    80.4    70.0    64.9    97.9         482.2
 s
Disburseme    19.2    41.2    56.6    65.8    72.7    81.1    96.7         433.3
 nts

Laboratory analysis\f
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation    57.7    75.5    52.8    47.1    34.0    55.0    25.5         347.6
 s
Disburseme    39.4    57.1    61.6    47.4    36.3    29.4    45.7         316.9
 nts

Other\g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation   148.3   213.6   266.8   347.3   304.9   262.0   290.5       1,833.4
 s
Disburseme    95.7   167.1   187.2   279.8   340.4   311.3   260.6       1,642.1
 nts
================================================================================
Totals
Obligation  $954.2  $1,365  $1,471  $1,494  $1,453  $1,689  $1,569      $9,998.4
 s                      .1      .9      .9      .2      .2      .9
Disburseme  $529.9       $       $  $1,127  $1,365  $1,367  $1,334      $7,463.7
 nts                 790.3   949.0      .2      .6      .4      .3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These figures do not include the cleanup costs for federal
facilities or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), which are not part of EPA's Superfund appropriations. 
However, they do include EPA's costs for overseeing federal facility
cleanups. 

\a These three categories (RI/FS, RD, and RA) include only EPA's
extramural costs (i.e., funds for EPA contractors, other federal
agencies--such as the Army Corps of Engineers and Interior
Department's Bureau of Reclamation--and cooperative agreements with
states). 

\b "Other remedial" includes EPA's intramural costs for the remedial
program.  Intramural costs represent EPA's internal operating costs,
such as personnel and travel.  This category also includes community
relations technical assistance grants and all intramural and
extramural costs associated with the preremedial program, which
screens sites for inclusion in the Superfund program. 

\c The removal category represents both intramural (e.g., on-scene
coordinators and travel) and extramural costs (e.g., the contracts
that provide the personnel, equipment, and materials for removal
actions). 

\d This category includes both the intramural and extramural costs
associated with EPA's Superfund enforcement program.  The extramural
costs are for contractual services related to responsible party
oversight and searches and to general support and management (e.g.,
technical review of documents and DOJ costs).  The intramural costs
represent personnel charges for EPA attorneys and their staff
involved in settlement negotiations, civil investigators, employee
training, and case-documentation preparation. 

\e Research and development includes both intramural and extramural
costs for EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program and Hazardous Substance Research Centers and the intramural
costs for EPA scientists. 

\f Laboratory analysis includes both intramural and extramural costs,
such as for the evaluation and tracking of samples. 

\g The "other" category includes such costs as rent, procurement,
training, and other general administrative program costs that are not
specifically related to and captured in the above remedial or removal
categories. 

Source:  EPA's Financial Management Systems Data. 


STATUS OF CLEANUP WORK AT 1,320
NPL SITES, AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1993
========================================================== Appendix II

EPA's data show that while nearly two-thirds of the 1,320 National
Priorities List (NPL) sites have at least one operable unit that has
progressed beyond the study phase, only 52 sites had been fully
cleaned up and deleted as of September 30, 1993.\1 (See table II.1.)
At another 223 sites, the remedy has been constructed, but either the
site was going through various steps in the deletion process, or
final cleanup levels had not yet been achieved because long-term
cleanup measures, such as groundwater pumping, are still under way. 
More than one-third of the 1,320 sites have no operable units that
have progressed further than the study phase; these sites are still
years away from being cleaned up. 



                          Table II.1
           
           Status of Cleanup Work at 1,320 Proposed
           and Final NPL Sites, as of September 30,
                             1993

                             Other
                 Initial      pre-     Post-
                     418      1987      1987   Federal
Status of NPL   proposed    listed    listed  facility  Tota
sites            sites\a   sites\a   sites\a     sites     l
--------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ====
Deleted from          35        15         2         0    52
 NPL (percent)       (8)       (4)      (.5)       (0)   (4)
RA
 construction         77        60        28         1   166
 completed          (19)      (15)       (8)      (.7)  (13)
 at all OUs
 (percent)
RA complete at
 one or more         117        62        16        11   206
 but not all        (28)      (16)       (4)       (8)  (16)
 OUs (percent)
RA ongoing at
 one or more          70        77        20        25   192
 OUs but not        (17)      (19)       (5)      (17)  (15)
 complete at
 any OU
 (percent)
RD complete at
 one or more           4         7         5         6    22
 but not all         (1)       (2)       (1)       (4)   (2)
 OUs (percent)
RD ongoing at
 one or more          69        70        51        13   203
 OUs but not        (17)      (18)      (14)       (9)  (15)
 complete at
 any OUs
 (percent)
RI/FS complete
 at one or            12        25        41         7    85
 more but not        (3)       (6)      (11)       (5)   (6)
 all OUs
 (percent)
RI/FS ongoing
 but not              28        76       151        56   311
 complete for        (7)      (19)      (41)      (39)  (24)
 any OU
 (percent)
RI/FS not              2         7        50        24    83
 started for        (.5)       (2)      (14)      (17)   (6)
 any OU
 (percent)
============================================================
Grand total          414       399       364       143  1,32
 (percent)       (100\b)   (100\b)   (100\b)   (100\b)     0
                                                        (100
                                                         \b)
------------------------------------------------------------
\a These three columns represent nonfederal facility sites that have
been categorized by their proposed listing date.  The first of the 3
columns does not add up to 418 because 4 of these proposed sites were
later taken off the NPL. 

\b Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 


--------------------
\1 Sites have been placed in the various categories according to the
status of work at the operable unit (OU) that has gone farthest in
the cleanup process--i.e., the most advanced OU.  To illustrate, the
Baird & McGuire site in Massachusetts has been placed in the RA
completion category.  This site has four OUs--remedial action has
been completed at one OU; two other OUs have remedial actions
ongoing, and remedy design is under way at a fourth OU. 


CLEANUP STATUS FOR 16 SITES LISTED
ON NPL BEFORE 1987
========================================================= Appendix III

EPA provided us with end-of-fiscal-year 1993 Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) data which indicated that 16 sites proposed on the NPL
before 1987 had not yet started the initial site study phase.  Before
reporting this information, we decided to perform limited audit work
to verify it and found that some of EPA's data were inaccurate. 
Table III.1 provides information on the sites where EPA's data were
inaccurate, and table III.2 provides information on the sites that
have yet to start the study phase. 



                         Table III.1
           
            Seven Pre-1987 Listed Sites for Which
           EPA Had Inaccurate Data on Site Cleanup
                            Status

                                Actual
                                cleanup
                                status, as
Site name,                      of
state               EPA region  9/30/93        Lead entity
---------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Agate Lake                   5  RI/FS ongoing  EPA
Scrap Yard, MN

San Gabriel                  9  RI/FS ongoing  EPA
Valley (Area
4), CA

McGraw-Edison,               5  RA complete    State
MI

Omega Hills                  5  RA ongoing     State
North Landfill,
WI\a

Avenue "E," MI               5  RA complete    State

Kent City, MI                5  RA complete    State

Southwest                    5  RA complete    State
Ottawa, MI
------------------------------------------------------------
\a This site was referred to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act program for cleanup. 



                         Table III.2
           
           Nine Pre-1987 Listed Sites With No Site
                       Studies Started

                            NPL
                            proposed
                       EPA  listing   Lead
Site name, state    region  date      entity    Site type
----------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
SCA Independent          5  12/30/    Fund      Landfill
Landfill, MI                82

Vestal Water             2  12/30/    State     Municipal
Supply 4-2, NY              82                  water well

Tomah Municipal          5  6/10/86   Fund      Landfill
Landfill, WI

Haverhill                1  10/15/    Fund      Landfill
Municipal                   84
Landfill, MA

Waste                    5  10/15/    State     Lagoons
Management, MI              84

Mouat                    8  10/15/    Fund      Wood
Industries, MT              84                  products
                                                manufacturin
                                                g company

Old Inland Pit,         10  6/10/86   State     Gravel mine
WA

Ventron/                 2  9/08/83   State     Abandoned
Velsicol, NJ                                    chemical
                                                processing
                                                plant

San Gabriel              9  9/08/83   Fund      Contaminated
Valley (Area 3),                                groundwater/
CA                                              water supply
                                                wells
------------------------------------------------------------

TIMES TAKEN TO COMPLETE VARIOUS
CLEANUP PHASES
========================================================== Appendix IV

The following figures show EPA's data on the time taken to complete
cleanup work for projects (operable units) where the work was started
after passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in
October 1986 and completed by September 30, 1993.  The average times
presented in the text are based on these individual cases. 

   Figure IV.1:  Completion Times
   for Site Studies, in Years,
   Fund- and Responsible
   Party-Financed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  For fund-financed site studies, the average time was 2.6 years
and the median time was 2.5 years.  For responsible party-financed
site studies, the average time was 3.0 years while the median was 2.9
years. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of EPA's CERCLIS data. 

   Figure IV.2:  Completion Times
   for the Period Between Site
   Study Complete and the Start of
   Remedial Design, in Years,
   Fund- and Responsible
   Party-Financed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  For fund-financed, the average time was .5 years and the
median time was .4 years.  For responsible party-financed, the
average time was .7 years while the median was .6 years. 

Source:  GAO's Analysis of EPA's CERCLIS data. 

   Figure IV.3:  Completion Times
   for Remedial Design, in Years,
   Fund- And Responsible
   Party-Financed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  For fund-financed remedial designs, the average time was 1.8
years and the median time was 1.3 years.  For responsible
party-financed remedial designs, the average time was 1.7 years while
the median was 1.5 years. 

Source:  GAO's Analysis of EPA's CERCLIS data. 

   Figure IV.4:  Completion Times
   for Remedial Action, in Years,
   Fund- and Responsible
   Party-Financed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  For fund-financed remedial actions, the average time was 2.2
years and the median time was 2.0 years.  For responsible
party-financed remedial actions, the average time was 1.8 years while
the median was 1.5 years. 

Source:  GAO's Analysis of EPA's CERCLIS data. 


AVERAGE TIMES TAKEN, IN YEARS, TO
COMPLETE FUND- AND RESPONSIBLE
PARTY-FINANCED CLEANUP PHASES, BY
REGION, AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
=========================================================== Appendix V


Cl
ea
nu
p
ph
as
e        1       2       3       4       5       6       7       8       9      10
--  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
RI     3.5     2.7     2.7     2.9     3.3     2.0     2.1     2.0     2.7     3.7
 /  (N=21)  (N=73)  (N=91)  (N=76)  (N=71)  (N=27)  (N=31)  (N=23)  (N=45)  (N=14)
 F
 S
RI      .6      .5      .8      .5      .5      .7      .8      .4      .3      .7
 /
 F  (N=19)  (N=62)  (N=57)  (N=49)  (N=65)  (N=33)  (N=23)  (N=22)  (N=35)   (N=8)
 S
 c
 o
 m
 p
 l
 e
 t
 e
 t
 o
 R
 D
 s
 t
 a
 r
 t
Re     2.1     2.4     1.5     1.7     1.4     1.7     1.4     1.8     1.6     2.0
 m  (N=32)  (N=56)  (N=77)  (N=63)  (N=90)  (N=42)  (N=24)  (N=31)  (N=21)  (N=20)
 e
 d
 i
 a
 l
 D
 e
 s
 i
 g
 n
Re     1.7     1.9     2.0     2.1     1.5     2.3     2.0     2.0     2.1     2.6
 m  (N=17)  (N=38)  (N=50)  (N=35)  (N=54)  (N=17)  (N=14)  (N=17)  (N=23)  (N=10)
 e
 d
 i
 a
 l
 A
 c
 t
 i
 o
 n
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The above times are for operable units, not sites, and for
work started and completed after SARA. 


ALL LAWSUITS CHALLENGING A REMOVAL
OR REMEDY
========================================================== Appendix VI

                                What was            Did challenge  Estimated
Case name   Site name/state     challenged?         cause delay?   delay, if any
----------  ------------------  ------------------  -------------  -------------
Challenges brought before the limits were enacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dickerson   Dickerson Post      Removal (off-site   Yes            40 months
v. EPA      site,               disposal)
            Georgia

J.V.        J. V. Peters site,  Removal, (off-      Yes            1 month
Peters &    Ohio                site disposal
Co., Inc.
v. EPA

Jefferson   Minker/Stout/       Removal (on-site    Yes            2-6 months
County, MO  Romaine Creek       consolidation of
v. EPA      site, Missouri      soil)

Lone Pine   Lone Pine           Remedy (landfill    No             Not
Steering    Landfill, New       capping)                           applicable
Committee   Jersey
v. EPA


Challenges brought after the limits were enacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama v.  Geneva Industries/  Remedy (off-site    Yes            6-8 months
EPA         Furhrmann Energy    disposal)
            site, Texas

Arkansas    Vertac Superfund    Removal (on-site    Yes            Less than 1
Peace       site, Arkansas      incineration)                      month
Center v.
Arkansas
Department
of
Pollution
Control &
Ecology

Bryant v.   Texarkana Wood      Remedy              No             Not
EPA         Preserving Company  (incineration)                     applicable
            site,
            Texas

City of     West Dallas Lead    Removal (off-site   Yes            Less than 1
Monroe, LA  site,               disposal)                          month
v. EPA      Texas

Cooper      Sturgis Municipal   Remedy              Yes            Unknown
Industries  Wellfield site,     (groundwater pump
, Inc. v.   Michigan            and treat)
EPA

Elmer A.    Fike Chemical       Removal (sought to  No             Not
Fike v.     site, West          stop EPA's removal                 applicable
U.S.        Virginia            action)

Lopez v.    Crystal City        Remedy (challenged  No             Not
Layton and  Airport Superfund   adequacy of EPA's                  applicable
Chrystal    site, Texas         remedy)
City
Airport v.
EPA

Louisiana   West Dallas Lead    Removal (off-site   Yes            Unknown\a
v. Reilly   site,               disposal of
            Texas               nonhazardous solid
                                wastes)

Neighborho  G.E.M.S. Landfill,  Remedy (sought to   Unknown        Unknown
od Toxic    New Jersey          prevent
Cleanup                         implementation)
Emergency
v. Reilly

North       Waukegan            Remedy              No             Not
Shore Gas   Manufactured Gas    (construction of a                 applicable
Co. v. EPA  and Coke Plant      boat slip)
            site, Illinois

Precision   Locomotive          Remedy              Unknown        Unknown
National    crankshaft          (requirement for
Plating     reconditioning      alternative water
Services,   facility in Clarks  source)
Inc. v.     Summit,
EPA         Pennsylvania

RTI, Inc.   Radiation Tech,     Remedy for soil     Unknown        Unknown
v. Morton   Inc. site, New      and groundwater
Thickol     Jersey              contamination

Reynolds    Lee Acres           Remedy: Bureau of   Unknown        Unknown
v. Lujan    Landfill, New       Land Management's
            Mexico              response action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  This table excludes challenges addressing EPA's actions at
more than one site and challenges to EPA's use of administrative
orders, which may also include a challenge to a remedy or removal. 

\a This and related challenges delayed cleanup.  The effect of this
specific challenge is unknown. 

Source:  Officials in DOJ's Environmental Defense Section and EPA
headquarters staff and regional attorneys. 


SITES WHERE LEGAL CHALLENGES HAVE
DELAYED CLEANUP
========================================================= Appendix VII

Cleanup delays may prolong public exposure to hazardous substances,
increasing the likelihood that a site will adversely affect human
health and the environment.  Although EPA takes interim actions to
minimize the risks posed by a site, until cleanup actions are
complete, there is some risk that hazardous substances from the site
will be released into the air, soil, or groundwater. 

Described below are four sites where legal challenges delayed or
significantly disrupted cleanup activities.  A challenge brought by a
responsible party before the statutory enactment of the bar on
judicial reviews delayed removal activities at the first site by more
than 3 years.  Challenges brought by states, citizens groups, and
local governments, subsequent to the enactment of the bar, delayed
the cleanup of three other sites.  EPA regional attorneys assigned to
these sites estimated that the cleanup delays ranged from less than a
month to 6 months.  At two sites, the delays were caused by multiple
legal challenges. 


      DICKERSON POST SITE, GEORGIA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.1

A legal challenge brought by owners of the Dickerson Post site
greatly hindered EPA's emergency removal of creosote contamination at
this abandoned wood treatment facility, according to the EPA attorney
assigned to the site.  The site contained, among other things, 252
open drums of liquid waste, which threatened air and groundwater.  A
well is located 100 feet from the site.  Although it was not being
used for drinking purposes when EPA discovered the site, the well
presented a potential pathway for groundwater contamination.  The
owners proposed a plan to clean up the site, which EPA felt did not
fully address the contamination at the site.  Consequently, the
agency decided to proceed with its own cleanup plan, using funds from
the Superfund trust fund. 

However, hazardous materials remained on the site for more than 3
years because of a challenge brought by the owners of the site. 
CERCLA authorizes EPA to clean up sites and recover the agency's
costs from responsible parties.  To prevent EPA from proceeding with
a cleanup they might have to pay for, the owners filed suit in
district court and obtained a temporary restraining order barring
EPA's access to the site.  Shortly thereafter, in September 1984, EPA
filed its own complaint seeking immediate access to the property and
a motion to dismiss the owners' challenge.  The district court did
not rule on the issues until May 1987, when it dismissed the
challenge and authorized EPA to enter the site.  The court's delay in
ruling on EPA's motion postponed removal activities at the site by
more than 3 years. 


--------------------
\1 EPA v.  Dickerson, 660 F.Supp.  227 (M.D.  Ga.), aff'd, 834 F.2d
974 (11th Cir.  1987). 


      GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMANN
      ENERGY SITE, TEXAS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.2

According to EPA officials, a challenge delayed cleanup of the Geneva
Industries/Fuhrmann Energy Site by 6 to 8 months, even though the
challenge was ultimately dismissed, because a court initially
considered the challenge to be an exception to section 113(h).  The
site, an abandoned petrochemical plant, is located in a heavily
populated area of Houston.  Approximately 35,000 people live within 1
mile of the site, and the nearest residence is only 50 feet away.  A
drinking water well is located about a quarter of a mile from the
site.  The soil, ponds, groundwater, and waste piles on the site are
contaminated with petrochemical compounds, PCBs, and volatile organic
chemicals. 

In November 1988, the state of Alabama challenged EPA's proposed
shipment of 47,000 tons of soil contaminated with high levels of PCBs
and other toxic wastes from the site to a waste treatment facility in
Alabama.  Even though the treatment facility was licensed and
authorized by the state to handle PCB-contaminated waste, Alabama
challenged EPA's decision to use the facility to treat waste from the
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy site.  The state maintained that as
an affected party, it had a constitutional and statutory right to be
given notice and an opportunity for a hearing before EPA selected a
final cleanup strategy for the site.  A federal district court agreed
and in December 1988 issued an order that stopped EPA from conducting
the cleanup and required the agency to re-evaluate its overall
cleanup strategy. 

Although a federal circuit court of appeals reversed this decision in
April 1989, dismissing the challenge, EPA officials estimate that the
challenge delayed cleanup by 6 to 8 months and increased the agency's
contractor costs by $1 million.  According to the EPA site attorney,
the agency continued to incur contractor costs while cleanup
activities were halted and incurred additional costs as the result of
having to demobilize and then remobilize the contractor 6 months
later. 


--------------------
\2 State of Alabama v.  EPA, 711 F.Supp.  574 (M.D.  Ala.  1988),
rev'd, 871 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir.), cert.  denied, 110 S.  Ct.  538
(1989). 


      VERTAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION
      SUPERFUND SITE, ARKANSAS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.3

A challenge filed by a citizens group was very disruptive to cleanup
activities at this site, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ)
official.  In October 1992, the group filed suit against EPA, an
incineration contractor, and the state of Arkansas to stop on-site
incineration of dioxin-contaminated waste from a former herbicide and
pesticide manufacturing facility.  EPA field staff were diverted from
cleanup activities to prepare for litigation, and the development of
a record of decision (ROD) for another operable unit at the site was
delayed because the remedy for that operable unit also involved
incineration. 

In response to the challenge, in February 1993 a federal court
ordered EPA to stop on-site incineration of dioxin-contaminated
waste.\3 A higher court quickly stayed enforcement of the order,
pending appeal.\4 In July 1993, the appeals court reversed the
decision, ordering the lower court to dismiss the challenge.\5
According to the EPA site attorney, cleanup activities were delayed
less than a month.  Nonetheless, EPA expended at least 230 staff days
responding to the challenge-- in addition to the staff days expended
by DOJ.  A DOJ official noted that because of the district court's
injunction, the cleanup will require additional federal funding. 

The challenge also had effects beyond the Vertac site.  A DOJ
official noted that contractors may be less willing to undertake
controversial cleanup projects in the future as a result of this
challenge.  In addition, according to the EPA site attorney, the
challenge delayed negotiations with responsible parties at two other
sites:  one where EPA planned to use the same incineration contractor
and another site where similar contamination was present. 


--------------------
\3 Arkansas Peace Center v.  Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
& Ecology, 23 E.L.R.  20,807 (E.D.  Ark.  1993). 

\4 992 F.2d 145 (8th Cir.  1993). 

\5 999 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir.  1993), cert.  denied, 62 U.S.L.W.  (U.S. 
Apr.  4, 1994). 


      WEST DALLAS LEAD SUPERFUND
      SITE, TEXAS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.4

According to an EPA official, cleanup activities were significantly
delayed at the West Dallas Lead site when a district court decided
that the statutory limits on judicial review did not apply\7 to a
challenge brought by the state of Louisiana.  In February 1992,
Louisiana challenged EPA's plan to transport lead-contaminated soil
from the Texas site to a Louisiana disposal facility. 

The state filed suit to prevent EPA from using a landfill in
Louisiana to dispose of waste from the site.  Section 121(e)(2) of
CERCLA permits states to enforce any federal or state requirement
governing remedial actions.  The state believed that under federal
law, the Louisiana landfill was not authorized to accept waste from
the West Dallas Lead site.  EPA argued that Louisiana's challenge was
precluded by section 113(h) of CERCLA.  In April 1992, the district
court determined that it had jurisdiction to review Louisiana's
challenge under section 121(e)(2) of CERCLA.  In February 1993, on
the basis of additional information provided by EPA, the same court
dismissed Louisiana's challenge on the grounds that EPA's activities
at the site constituted a removal rather than a remedial action. 

Although EPA was successful in federal court, the agency's use of the
Louisiana facility was blocked by a state court action in which EPA
was not a party.  In February 1992, the parish in which the facility
was located sought an injunction to prevent the facility from
receiving soil from the West Dallas Lead site.  The parish maintained
that receipt of soil from the site violated the facility's contract
with the parish.  The state trial court agreed and issued a
preliminary injunction, which prevented the disposal facility from
receiving soil from the site.\8

According to an EPA official, cleanup activities were effectively
halted while EPA identified and contracted with a Texas facility to
receive the soil.  Local governments opposed to use of the second
facility took legal action, also in state court, against the company
selected by EPA to transport the contaminated soil.  EPA was
ultimately able to send soil to the second facility, but the
challenge further delayed cleanup of the site. 


--------------------
\6 Louisiana v.  EPA, Civ.  No.  92-0274 (W.D.  La.  Apr.  6, 1992). 

\7 Louisiana v.  EPA, Civ.  No.  92-0274 (W.D.  La.  Feb.  4, 1993). 

\8 Ouachita Parish Police Jury v.  American Waste and Pollution
Control Co., 606 So.  2d 1341 (La.  App.  2d Cir.  1992), cert. 
denied, 113 S.  Ct.  2339 (1993). 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
======================================================== Appendix VIII

To obtain information on the disbursements and net obligations in the
Superfund program, fiscal years 1987 through 1993, we requested data
from the EPA Financial Management Division's Superfund Accounting
Branch.  They provided us with data from two separate financial
management information systems--namely, the Financial Management
System for disbursement and obligation data before fiscal year 1989
and the Integrated Financial Management System for the other fiscal
years.  We also reviewed and analyzed EPA's budget data, annual
financial statements, and related budgetary and program materials. 
We interviewed agency officials from the budget, accounting, and
program divisions to identify and describe trends in obligations. 

To determine the status of cleanup at NPL sites, we asked EPA to
provide us with data on the number of sites in various stages of the
cleanup process, using its end-of-the-fiscal-year 1993 CERCLIS data. 
Since we did not independently verify EPA's data for completeness and
accuracy, we cannot ascertain the overall reliability of EPA's data. 
However, audit work performed by us and EPA's Office of Inspector
General indicates some errors in CERCLIS data.  We interviewed staff
from EPA headquarters and regional offices to clarify the status of
cleanup work at 16 NPL sites listed before 1987 for which EPA's data
indicated that no RI/FS work had been started. 

To examine the differences in the overall time taken to complete
fund-financed and responsible party-financed work, we obtained EPA
CERCLIS data that consist of, among other things, the dates on which
each phase began and ended for an operable unit.  We analyzed the
elapsed time of four individual phases in the remedial cleanup
process:  RI/FS, RD, RA, and the time between the end of the RI/FS
phase and the beginning of the RD phase.  We included the latter
because this was the only time between the three major cleanup phases
that EPA officials said could take a signficant amount of time and
thus significantly lengthen cleanup time. 

To determine the average time for the three major cleanup phases, we
measured the elapsed time for the three major phases of the cleanup
process from the first date that RI/FS, RD, or RA work was started
for an operable unit to the final completion date of any RI/FS, RD,
or RA work, respectively--regardless of the number of RI/FSs, RDs, or
RAs completed for an operable unit.  For the elapsed time from the
end of RI/FS to the beginning of an RD, we measured time between the
final completion date for RI/FS work at an operable unit to the first
date any RD work was begun.  Durations for ongoing work were defined
as the elasped time between the date on which an activity was started
(e.g., RI/FS, RD, or RA) and September 30, 1993.  We did not use
EPA's data on planned completion dates for work still under way,
primarily because EPA officials expressed little confidence in the
data.  In addition, at the time of our review, CERCLIS did not permit
EPA regional staff to put in dates beyond 1999.  Our data exclude (1)
federal facilities, (2) operable units that have planned start or
complete dates, (3) operable units with improperly coded first start
and final complete dates, (4) operable units missing a major event
(e.g., an operable unit with an RA duration but no RI/FS or RD
phase), and (5) operable units that had an RI/FS, RD, or RA phase
with a duration of zero. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the limits on judicial review of
EPA's cleanup decisions, we reviewed reported cases of challenges to
EPA's cleanup decisions and actions.  We also interviewed officials
in the Department of Justice's Environmental Defense Section and
EPA's Office of General Counsel.  With the assistance of EPA and DOJ,
we identified 62 lawsuits challenging EPA's actions at Superfund
sites and categorized these challenges, on the basis of information
provided by DOJ.  We reviewed all 4 of 4 pre-SARA challenges to a
removal or remedy and 6 of 13 such challenges that occurred after
SARA was enacted.  The remaining 45 challenges, which we did not
review, concerned such issues as EPA's site access, use of
administrative orders, NPL listing decisions, property liens, and
liability and insurance coverage, or concerned EPA's actions at
multiple sites. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IX


   RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND
   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.  C. 
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:1

Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director
James Donaghy, Assistant Director
Cathy Helm, Evaluator-in-Charge
Kathleen Richardson, Staff Evaluator
Patricia Donahue, Staff Evaluator
Curtis Groves, Operations Research Analyst


   BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:2

Janet Boswell, Staff Evaluator


   OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:3

Doreen Feldman, Assistant General Counsel
