Superfund: Information on Current Health Risks (Letter Report, 07/19/95,
GAO/RCED-95-205).

Superfund cost rates are soaring.  Although the Superfund program was
authorized through 1994 at $15 billion, covering more than 1,100
nonfederal sites, these figures could rise to $75 billion and 4,5000
nonfederal sites, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  Because
of these escalating costs, Congress is interested in the human health
risks addressed by the program.  Although the Environmental Protection
Agency has indicated that about 73 million people live fewer than four
miles from at least one Superfund site, much debate has centered on the
extent to which these sites pose health risks for cancer or other
conditions, such as birth defects or nerve or liver damage.  This report
discusses (1) the extent to which sites may pose health risks under
current land uses, as opposed the risks that may develop if land uses
change in the future; the nature of the current risks; and the type of
environmental media--groundwater, soil, or aid--that pose these risks
and (2) whether EPA's short-term responses to mitigate the health risks
from Superfund sites have reduced the risks under current land uses.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-205
     TITLE:  Superfund: Information on Current Health Risks
      DATE:  07/19/95
   SUBJECT:  Health hazards
             Environmental monitoring
             Hazardous substances
             Industrial wastes
             Environmental law
             Risk management
             Pollution control
             Safety standards
             Information gathering operations
             Carcinogens
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Priorities List
             Superfund Program
             EPA Responsive Electronic Link and Access Interface Data 
             Base
             
**************************************************************************
* 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 the Chairman, Committee on Small Business, U.S.  Senate

July 1995

SUPERFUND - INFORMATION ON CURRENT
HEALTH RISKS

GAO/RCED-95-205

Information on Current Health Risks


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

  CBO - Congressional Budget Office
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NPL - National Priorities List
  OERR - Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
  RELAI - Responsive Electronic Link and Access Interface

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


B-261507

July 19, 1995

The Honorable Christopher S.  Bond
Chairman, Committee on Small Business
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Superfund cost estimates are growing at a substantial rate.  The
Superfund program was authorized through 1994 at $15.2 billion,
covering over 1,100 nonfederal sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL).\1 These figures could grow to $75 billion (in 1994 dollars)
and 4,500 nonfederal sites, according to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO).\2 Because of these escalating costs, congressional
decisionmakers want to know more about the human health risks
addressed by the program.  Although the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently testified to the
Congress that approximately 73 million people live fewer than 4 miles
from at least one Superfund site, much debate has occurred about the
extent to which these sites pose health risks for cancer or other
conditions, such as birth defects or nerve or liver damage. 

To help measure the health risks from Superfund sites, you asked us
to provide the best available information on (1) the extent to which
sites may pose health risks under current land uses, as opposed to
the risks that may develop if land uses change in the future; the
nature of the current risks; and the types of environmental media
(e.g., groundwater, soil, or air) that pose these risks and (2)
whether EPA's short-term response actions to mitigate the health
risks from Superfund sites have reduced the risks under current land
uses.  This report presents our findings on these issues as they
relate to the 225 nonfederal NPL sites contained in EPA's data base
on health risks from Superfund sites--the most comprehensive
automated information available as of early 1995.  These sites
constitute most of the sites where EPA made cleanup decisions between
1991 and mid-1993.  As agreed with your office, in our ongoing work
for you we will examine other related issues, such as the nature of
health risks from Superfund sites under future changes in land use. 


--------------------
\1 The Congress created the Superfund program under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among
other things, to clean up contamination at the nation's hazardous
waste sites.  EPA places the sites it considers to be the most
severely contaminated on the NPL for cleanup. 

\2 The Total Costs of Cleaning Up Nonfederal Superfund Sites, CBO
(Washington, D.C.:  Jan.  1994). 


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

About one-third (or 71) of the 225 sites contained in EPA's data base
posed health risks serious enough to warrant cleanup, given current
land uses.\3 About another one-half (or 119) of the 225 sites did not
pose serious health risks under current land uses but posed such
health risks under EPA's projections about future changes in land
use.  The remainder of the sites did not pose health risks serious
enough to warrant cleanup action under either current or future land
uses.  However, EPA may decide to clean up these remaining sites to
comply with other federal or state regulations or because of a threat
to the environment, such as contamination endangering a wetland.  The
current health risks at the 71 sites usually occurred through a
single environmental medium, most commonly groundwater or soil.  Of
these 71 sites, 28 percent posed cancer risks; 30 percent posed risks
for noncancer conditions, such as birth defects or nerve or liver
damage; and the remainder posed risks for both cancer and other,
noncancer conditions. 

According to officials from EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, EPA's short-term response actions have temporarily
mitigated the health risks that could immediately endanger the
population surrounding the 71 sites that posed serious health risks
under current land uses.  Under EPA's policy, whenever a Superfund
site poses such a health risk, a short-term response, known as a
"removal action," will be undertaken.  EPA's data indicate that
various removal actions have occurred at 31 of the 71 sites.  EPA
officials caution that while removal actions clearly reduce health
risks, information is not readily available to determine the extent
to which the removal actions taken at these 31 sites affected the
risks reported in the data base.  The remaining 40 sites did not pose
immediate risks substantial enough to warrant removal actions,
according to the officials, although the sites still pose longer-term
health risks under current land uses.  For example, at some sites
contaminated groundwater that does not immediately endanger
surrounding populations may eventually reach the drinking water
supplies used by current residents, thereby posing an eventual health
risk. 


--------------------
\3 EPA considers the risk serious enough to warrant cleanup if (1) an
individual has more than a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing cancer
from exposure to the site's contaminants or (2) if exposure to the
site's contaminants might exceed the level humans can tolerate
without developing other ill health effects, such as birth defects or
nerve or liver damage. 


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

With the enactment of CERCLA in 1980, the Congress created the
Superfund program authorizing EPA, among other things, to clean up
contamination at hazardous waste sites.  CERCLA also created a trust
fund available for various cleanup activities and authorized EPA to
compel the parties responsible for these sites to help conduct or pay
for the cleanup.  The Superfund program was extended in 1986 and in
1990 and is now being considered for reauthorization.  Under CERCLA,
EPA assesses contaminated areas and then places the sites it
considers to be the most highly contaminated on the NPL for further
investigation and cleanup. 

EPA responds to hazardous substances at Superfund sites through
"removal" and "remedial" actions.  Removal actions are generally
short-term (less than 1 year), low-cost (under $2 million) measures
intended to address actual or potential releases of hazardous
substances that pose a threat to human health or the environment. 
Although many removal actions are temporary measures to prevent
exposure by stabilizing conditions at a site or limiting access to
the site, some removal actions may permanently clean up
contamination.\4 Typical removal actions include installing security
measures at a site, removing tanks or drums of hazardous substances
from a site, or excavating contaminated soil.  By contrast, remedial
actions are long-term measures intended to permanently mitigate the
risks from a site.  Typical remedial actions include treating or
containing contaminated soil, constructing underground walls to
control the movement of groundwater, and incinerating hazardous
wastes. 

Once a site is on the NPL, EPA conducts a "remedial investigation" to
determine whether the nature and extent of the contamination at the
site warrant remedial action.  One component of this investigation is
a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the health risks the site
would pose if no cleanup occurred.\5 For the baseline risk
assessment, EPA evaluates health risks under both "current land-use
conditions" and "alternate future land-use conditions." As an
example, a site would pose health risks under current land-use
conditions if local residents used groundwater containing a hazardous
level of contaminants from the site as drinking water or if
contaminated groundwater could eventually reach the wells of distant
residents.  By contrast, a site would pose health risks under
alternate future land-use conditions if future land development would
expose people to health risks from the site's contaminants, even if
the site may not pose risks under current land uses. 

At each site, EPA assesses the cancer risk, as well as the risk for
other ill health conditions (noncancer risk), posed by the
contaminants in groundwater, soil, surface water, sediment, air, and
other environmental media to determine if these risks warrant
cleanup.  In the case of cancer, EPA considers the risk serious
enough to warrant cleanup if the risk assessment indicates more than
a 1 in 10,000 probability that exposure to the site's contaminants
may cause an individual to develop cancer.  In the case of noncancer
health effects, such as birth defects or nerve or liver damage, EPA
considers the risk serious enough to warrant cleanup if the risk
assessment indicates that exposure to the site's contaminants might
exceed the level that the human body can tolerate without developing
ill health effects. 

EPA's Responsive Electronic Link and Access Interface (RELAI) data
base, from which we drew information for this report, is the most
comprehensive and current automated source of EPA's data on the
health risks of Superfund sites.  Created in 1993, this data base
contains information about health risks from EPA's risk assessments
and other documents related to 225 nonfederal sites, which constitute
most of the sites where EPA made cleanup decisions between 1991 and
mid-1993. 


--------------------
\4 According to officials in EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, while permanent removal actions are preferred over
temporary measures, EPA must consider several factors, including
competing needs at other sites, in determining the appropriate
removal action for a site. 

\5 At some sites, EPA may take removal actions before the risk
assessment occurs, which could reduce somewhat the risk estimated in
the baseline assessment of the site. 


   ONE-THIRD OF SITES POSED RISKS
   UNDER CURRENT LAND USES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

About 32 percent (71) of the 225 sites in EPA's data base posed
serious health risks under the land uses current at the time of the
risk assessment.  About 53 percent (119) of the 225 sites did not
pose risks warranting cleanup under current land uses, but posed such
risks under EPA's projections about future changes in land use.\6 The
remaining 15 percent (35) of the sites did not pose health risks
serious enough to warrant cleanup action under either current or
future land uses.  As we noted earlier, EPA may still decide to clean
up these remaining sites because of federal or state regulations or
because of a threat to the environment, such as contamination
endangering a wetland.  Figure 1 summarizes the extent of the health
risks posed by the 225 sites. 

   Figure 1:  Percentage of 225
   Superfund Sites With Risks
   Warranting Cleanup Under
   Current or Future Land Uses

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Sites posing risks under current land uses are assumed to pose
both current and future risks. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from EPA's RELAI data base. 

Our analysis of EPA's data on the 71 sites posing health risks under
current land uses indicates the following: 

  at 77 percent (55) of the sites, a single environmental medium,
     usually groundwater or contaminated soil, posed the health risks
     and

  at the remaining 23 percent (16) of the sites, multiple
     environmental media posed the health risks. 

Figure 2 compares the environmental media posing health risks at the
71 sites under current land uses. 

   Figure 2:  Environmental Media
   Posing Health Risks Under
   Current Land Uses at 71
   Superfund Sites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from EPA's RELAI data base. 

EPA's data for the 71 sites also indicate that 28 percent posed
cancer risks, 30 percent posed noncancer risks, and 42 percent posed
both cancer and noncancer risks.  EPA's noncancer risk category
includes such conditions as birth defects or nerve or liver damage. 
Figure 3 compares EPA's data on the cancer and noncancer risks posed
by the 71 Superfund sites. 

   Figure 3:  Percentage of Sites
   Posing Cancer or Noncancer
   Health Risks Under Current Land
   Uses

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from EPA's RELAI data base. 


--------------------
\6 According to EPA officials, the Superfund program is supposed to
address significant health risks under both current and future land
uses.  About 85 percent of sites in the RELAI data base meet EPA's
criteria for serious health risk under either current or future land
uses. 


   REMOVAL ACTIONS HAVE REDUCED
   IMMEDIATE HEALTH RISKS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

According to officials from the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR), EPA's removal program has mitigated the immediate
health risks from Superfund sites, at least temporarily.  EPA's
policy requires a short-term response whenever a Superfund site poses
a health risk that immediately endangers the surrounding populations. 
According to the OERR officials, under the removal program EPA has
periodically evaluated the NPL sites and has taken intervening steps
at those sites determined to pose immediate threats to health.  EPA's
data indicate that removal actions have occurred at 31 of the 71
sites that posed risk under current land uses.  Figure 4 shows the
various types of removal actions taken at these 31 sites. 

   Figure 4:  Removal Actions at
   31 Superfund Sites Posing
   Immediate Health Risks Under
   Current Land Uses

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  The total number of removal actions exceeds 31 because EPA has
performed multiple removal actions at some sites. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from EPA's RELAI data base. 

OERR officials caution that while removal actions have mitigated the
immediate health risks at these sites, information is not readily
available to determine the extent to which removal actions have
affected the health risks reported in the data base.  According to
these officials, the available information does not indicate whether
the removal actions removed or treated only enough contaminants to
mitigate the risks that immediately endangered a site's surrounding
population.  For example, a small pile of highly contaminated soil
might have been removed, mitigating the immediate risks to children
playing nearby but having little effect on the site's more extensive
soil contamination. 

OERR officials also caution that the available information does not
indicate the extent to which the health risks reported in the data
base may already reflect the effect of the removal actions.  In some
cases, a removal action may have taken place before the risk
assessment.  OERR officials are uncertain about whether, in such
cases, risk assessors might have considered the effect of the removal
in reporting the site's health risks. 

Of the 71 sites posing risks under current land uses, 40 sites did
not pose immediate threats substantial enough to warrant removal
actions, according to OERR officials.  These officials explained that
although these sites did not pose risks that immediately endanger
nearby populations, they still pose risks under current land-use
conditions.  For example, according to these officials, at some sites
contaminated groundwater has not yet reached drinking water. 
However, under current land uses, the groundwater could eventually
reach a drinking water supply, thereby posing a health risk.  Table 1
categorizes these 40 sites by the environmental media posing the
current health risk. 



                           Table 1
           
            Forty Sites Posing Health Risks Under
               Current Land Uses That Have Not
                   Warranted Removal Action

                                             Number of sites
                                               that have not
Environmental medium that posed health     warranted removal
risks                                                actions
----------------------------------------  ------------------
Groundwater                                               18
Soil                                                      13
Sediment                                                   2
Air                                                        1
Surface water                                              0
Multiple media                                             6
============================================================
Total                                                     40
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of data from EPA's RELAI data base. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We requested that EPA provide comments on a draft of this report.  On
June 19, 1995, we met with officials from EPA's OERR, including the
Chief, Response Operations Branch, to obtain the agency's comments on
the draft report.  The officials told us that they were generally
satisfied that the information presented in the report is accurate. 
The officials provided additional perspectives on several issues
discussed in the report and also suggested technical corrections on a
few matters.  We revised the draft report to incorporate these
comments. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

To provide information on the extent to which Superfund sites may
pose serious health risks under current land uses and on the nature
of those risks, we analyzed pertinent information from EPA's most
comprehensive data base on the health risks from Superfund sites. 
While we did not independently verify the accuracy of EPA's data, we
reviewed the agency's data collection and verification guidelines and
internal quality assurance procedures, and determined these internal
controls to be adequate.  We worked closely with EPA officials to
ensure a proper interpretation and analysis of the data.  Although
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry--the Public
Health Service agency responsible for identifying health problems in
the communities around Superfund sites--also assesses sites' health
risks, we did not analyze the agency's evaluation data on Superfund
sites for this report because of time constraints. 

To provide information on whether EPA's short-term response actions
have reduced the health risks from Superfund sites, we obtained EPA's
data on the removal actions that have occurred at the 71 sites where
current health risks existed.  Although we did not verify this
information, we discussed the information and EPA's removal policy
and actions with officials from OERR's Response Standards and
Criteria and Response Operations branches. 

We performed our work between April and June 1995 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce this
report's contents earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10
days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send
copies to the Administrator, EPA; the Director, Office of Management
and Budget; and other interested parties.  We will also make copies
available to others on request. 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix I.  If
you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-6111. 

Sincerely yours,

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix I


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

Eileen R.  Larence, Assistant Director
Patricia J.  Manthe, Evaluator-in-Charge
Karen A.  Simpson, Evaluator
Barbara A.  Johnson, Program Analyst
Jeanine M.  Brady, Reports Analyst


   CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Sharon E.  Butler, Senior Evaluator