Superfund: Number of Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites
Is Difficult to Determine (Letter Report, 03/27/96, GAO/RCED-96-75).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
parties responsible for contaminating sites on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL), focusing on
the number of: (1) de minimis parties that may have contributed only a
relatively small amount of contamination at nonfederal NPL sites; and
(2) potentially responsible parties at nonfederal municipal co-disposal
landfill sites.
GAO found that: (1) EPA data collection limitations and reliance on
project managers' judgment to identify parties make it difficult to
accurately determine the number of de minimis or potentially responsible
parties; (2) at least 8,500 to more than 25,000 de minimis parties were
associated with 175 nonfederal NPL sites; (3) about 15,000 to more than
40,000 potentially responsible parties were associated with 245
nonfederal municipal co-disposal landfill sites; and (4) the estimates
may be understated because of the data limitations and because they do
not include sites that may be added to NPL.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-96-75
TITLE: Superfund: Number of Potentially Responsible Parties at
Superfund Sites Is Difficult to Determine
DATE: 03/27/96
SUBJECT: Waste disposal
Hazardous substances
Municipal governments
Waste treatment
Liability (legal)
Legal fees
Litigation
Waivers
Environmental law
IDENTIFIER: EPA National Priorities List
Superfund Program
Reform of Superfund Act of 1995
Accelerated Cleanup and Environmental Restoration Act of
1995
EPA Remedial Project Managers Site 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. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate
March 1996
SUPERFUND - NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AT SUPERFUND
SITES IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE
GAO/RCED-96-75
Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites
(160328)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
GAO - General Accounting Office
NPL - National Priorities List
PRP - potentially responsible parties
RPM - Remedial Project Managers
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-271063
March 27, 1996
The Honorable John H. Chafee
Chairman, Committee on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a register,
called the National Priorities List (NPL), of the nation's worst
known hazardous waste sites.\1 These sites are commonly referred to
as Superfund sites. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the parties responsible for
contaminating these sites are liable for the costs of cleaning them
up. Responsible parties can also incur substantial legal costs to
allocate the cleanup expenses among themselves, to settle with the
government, and to litigate the liability for cleanups. De minimis
parties--parties who have contributed only a relatively small amount
of low-toxicity waste to a site--can incur legal costs that may
exceed their share of a site's cleanup costs. In addition, parties
associated with municipal co-disposal landfills--that is, landfills
that have received both municipal solid waste and industrial
hazardous substances--can incur high legal costs when disputes over
allocating costs arise at these sites. These disputes result from
the large numbers of parties and the large volumes of nonhazardous
waste mixed with hazardous substances at these sites.
To prevent certain parties from incurring disproportionately high
legal costs, the Congress is considering legislative proposals that
would provide relief from the liability for site cleanup costs for de
minimis parties and potentially responsible parties (PRP) associated
with municipal co-disposal landfills. To assist congressional
deliberations on these proposals, you asked us to provide information
on the number of (1) de minimis parties at nonfederal NPL sites and
(2) PRPs at nonfederal municipal co-disposal landfill sites on the
NPL.
--------------------
\1 As of December 1995, the NPL included 1,238 sites.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Determining with any degree of certainty the number of de minimis
parties at nonfederal Superfund sites and potentially responsible
parties associated with nonfederal municipal co-disposal landfills is
difficult because EPA's data on the number of parties at many sites
are incomplete. On the basis of the limited data available in EPA's
database, we estimate that there are, at a minimum, about 8,500 to
more than 25,000 de minimis parties at 175 nonfederal Superfund sites
and about 15,000 to 40,000 or more potentially responsible parties at
245 nonfederal municipal co-disposal landfill sites.\2 Because EPA's
data are incomplete, our estimates are likely to be understated.
--------------------
\2 These estimates include PRPs at nonfederal sites that were on the
NPL as of 1993; they do not include PRPs at hazardous waste sites
that (1) had not been added to the NPL at that time, (2) have been
added since 1993, or (3) may be added in the future.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Under CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, EPA has the authority to
(1) compel the parties responsible for the pollution at hazardous
waste sites to clean them up or (2) seek reimbursement from these
parties for the cleanup costs. Responsible parties can, in turn, sue
other responsible parties to recoup some of their own expenses.
These parties can include generators and transporters of waste and
owners and operators of waste sites. According to EPA, de minimis
parties generally are generators or transporters of waste whose
contribution to the waste at a site is minimal in terms of both
volume and toxicity.
To provide relief from the substantial legal costs that de minimis
parties can incur in allocating the liability for cleanup costs, EPA
is authorized--but not required--to enter into expedited settlements
with these parties. These settlements reduce overall legal costs by
protecting small parties against claims by other PRPs and reducing
the total liability for the remaining PRPs.
Co-disposal landfills are publicly or privately owned waste
facilities in which both municipal and industrial waste are mixed.
Municipal waste generally includes such nonhazardous household waste
as food, yard waste, glass, and aluminum. Industrial waste may
include chemicals, solvents, and other hazardous materials.
Generally, EPA holds municipalities, industries, and other large
contributors of waste primarily responsible for cleaning up sites
rather than individual householders or other small contributors.
Two legislative proposals pending in the Congress would affect
certain PRPs' liability for cleanup costs. The Accelerated Cleanup
and Environmental Restoration Act of 1995 (S. 1285) would require
EPA to offer expedited settlements to de minimis parties, who are
defined in the bill as responsible parties whose share of the
liability for a site's cleanup costs is 1 percent or less. By
accepting the settlement offer and paying the agreed-upon costs, a
responsible party would generally be free from further liability at a
particular site. The Reform of Superfund Act of 1995 (H.R. 2500)
would exempt from liability certain parties at NPL sites who
contributed no more than 1 percent of the volume of materials
containing hazardous substances at a given site. H.R. 2500 would
also eliminate the liability for cleanup costs of all parties at
facilities authorized to accept household waste, including municipal
co-disposal landfills.
EPA's Remedial Project Managers (RPM) Site Database contains detailed
information on the characteristics of NPL sites.\3
The RPM database is based on a 1993 survey of over 450 EPA regional
remedial project managers in 10 regions. Project managers provided
factual information and, in some cases, relied upon their best
professional judgment to characterize specific aspects of each site,
including its uses and contamination, the types and numbers of PRPs,
waste volumes, cleanup costs, and other topics.
--------------------
\3 At the time of our review, 1993 was the most recent year for which
EPA had detailed data on PRPs and other characteristics of specific
NPL sites. In 1993, 1,056 of the 1,249 sites on the NPL were "final"
(i.e., not yet deleted) nonfederal sites. Detailed data are not
available on the sites that have been added to the list since 1993.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DE MINIMIS
PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Determining the number of de minimis parties at nonfederal NPL sites
is difficult because EPA's RPM Site Database has several limitations
that serve to understate the number of de minimis parties. Although
the database is the most current and comprehensive source of
site-specific data on NPL sites, it does not contain objectively
defined or complete data on the PRPs associated with each site.
Specifically, because detailed volumetric data are not available at
many sites, it relies on project managers' judgment rather than on
volumetric measures to identify de minimis parties. Furthermore, it
includes only those PRPs known to EPA, potentially excluding other
contributors that have not been identified. For nearly one-third of
the nonfederal NPL sites, it does not contain sufficient data to
determine the number of de minimis parties.
In view of these limitations, we sought to arrive at the best
possible estimate of the number of de minimis parties by analyzing
the available data on two different categories of PRPs: (1) those
that project managers had identified as "likely to be considered de
minimis parties" and (2) those that project managers had categorized
as "likely to have contributed less than 1 percent of the waste at a
site."
Under EPA's guidance, a de minimis party is one whose waste
contribution is "minimal as compared to the total waste volume at the
site." This definition reflects a project manager's general
determination that a PRP's contribution is "minimal" rather than a
specific comparison based upon measurements of the volume of waste
contributed by the parties at the site. Similarly, the
categorization of a PRP as one that has contributed less than 1
percent of the waste at a site is based on a project manager's
judgment rather than on actual measurements. Hence, under both
methods of defining a de minimis party, the volume and even the
proportion of waste contributed by such a party can vary from site to
site.\4
--------------------
\4 Although de minimis parties and those who have contributed less
than 1 percent of the waste at a site are responsible for relatively
small portions of the total waste, at some large sites, the volume of
waste deposited by these parties may be significant. For example, a
PRP who has contributed 1 percent of the 100 million gallons of waste
at a site would be responsible for 1 million gallons of this waste.
Furthermore, at some sites, all or most PRPs could be de minimis
parties, accounting for all or most of the waste there.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARTIES
CONSIDERED BY PROJECT
MANAGERS TO BE DE MINIMIS
PARTIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
Figure 1 presents data on the number of nonfederal NPL sites with
parties likely to be considered de minimis parties and the number of
such parties at these sites. These data reflect EPA remedial project
managers' estimates of the number of parties at individual sites that
could be considered de minimis parties under EPA's guidance. As this
figure indicates, there are no de minimis parties at 609 (about 58
percent) of the 1,056 nonfederal NPL sites. However, at a cumulative
total of 175 such sites (about 17 percent), one or more de minimis
parties are known to have deposited waste. Furthermore, on the basis
of EPA's data, we estimate that from about 8,500 to more than 25,000
de minimis parties--including site owners and operators and waste
generators and transporters--may be associated with these 175
sites.\5 However, our estimate may not reflect all of the de minimis
parties at nonfederal NPL sites because the information available on
the remaining 272 sites (about 26 percent) is not sufficient to
determine how many de minimis parties may be associated with those
sites. In addition, our estimate does not include PRPs at any sites
that may be added to the NPL in the future. EPA believes that as
many as 700 additional sites could ultimately be placed on the NPL.
According to EPA, approximately 20 percent of these sites could have
de minimis parties.
Figure 1: Estimated Number of
de Minimis Parties at 1,056
Nonfederal NPL Sites
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: EPA's RPM Site Database.
--------------------
\5 EPA's RPM Site Database presents data on responsible parties at
each site in ranges, defined as follows: 0, 1, 2-10, 11-50, 51-100,
101-500, 501-1,000, and more than 1,000 parties. We estimated the
total range of parties at waste sites by multiplying the number of
sites with parties in each range category by the low and high ends of
the range and adding the results across all range categories.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARTIES
CATEGORIZED BY PROJECT
MANAGERS AS LIKELY TO HAVE
CONTRIBUTED LESS THAN 1
PERCENT OF THE WASTE AT A
SITE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Figure 2 presents data on the number of nonfederal NPL sites with
parties that EPA project managers considered likely to have
contributed less than 1 percent of a site's waste and the number of
such parties at these sites. According to EPA's data, 498 (about 47
percent) of the nonfederal NPL sites have no PRPs that contributed
less than 1 percent of a site's waste; however, a cumulative total of
255 additional sites (about 24 percent) have known PRPs that
contributed less than 1 percent of the waste. The data on 303 other
sites (about 29 percent) are insufficient to determine how many PRPs
may have contributed less than 1 percent of the waste. On the basis
of EPA's data, we estimate that the total number of PRPs--including
site owners and operators and waste generators and transporters--that
have contributed less than 1 percent of the waste at the 255 sites
ranges from about 10,000 to over 30,000.
Figure 2: Estimated Number of
Parties Contributing Less Than
1 Percent of the Waste at 1,056
Nonfederal NPL Sites
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: EPA's RPM Site Database.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARTIES AT
NONFEDERAL MUNICIPAL
CO-DISPOSAL LANDFILLS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
EPA has identified 245 nonfederal municipal co-disposal sites on the
NPL. Officials in EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance told us, however, that determining which sites should be
characterized primarily as municipal co-disposal sites is difficult
because of the large volume and the variety of types of waste
deposited at some sites. Consequently, according to these officials,
lists of municipal co-disposal sites derived from the same data may
differ because this determination often requires subjective judgment.
Therefore, although EPA's list of 245 sites appears to be the most
recent such assessment and is based on detailed analyses, it may not
include all sites that could be considered municipal co-disposal
landfills. It may also include sites that other analysts might not
have characterized as co-disposal landfills.
According to EPA's data, the 245 nonfederal municipal co-disposal
landfills containing both household and industrial waste account for
about 23 percent of the total 1,056 nonfederal NPL sites. Figure 3
groups the 245 municipal co-disposal landfill sites by the number of
PRPs estimated at the sites.
As this figure indicates, 1 municipal co-disposal landfill is
identified as having no PRPs, and a cumulative total of 218
additional sites are identified as having at least one known PRP. On
the basis of EPA's data for these 218 sites, we estimate that from
about 15,000 to about 40,000 or more PRPs may be associated with
these sites. The information on the remaining 26 sites (about 10
percent) is insufficient to determine the number of PRPs associated
with those sites. Therefore, our estimate may understate the number
of PRPs associated with nonfederal municipal co-disposal sites.
Furthermore, our estimate does not include PRPs at any sites that may
be added to the NPL in the future. EPA believes that as many as 700
additional sites could be added to the NPL in the future. According
to EPA, approximately 22 percent of these sites could be co-disposal
landfill sites.
Figure 3: Estimated Number of
Potentially Responsible Parties
at 245 Nonfederal NPL Municipal
Co-disposal Landfill Sites
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: EPA's RPM Site Database.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review
and comment. We met with the Deputy Director, Policy and Program
Evaluation Division, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, in EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and with other
representatives of that office, to obtain the agency's comments.
These officials stated that, overall, the report accurately
characterizes EPA's available data on de minimis parties and
municipal co-disposal sites. In addition to making a number of
suggestions for clarifying our discussion, which we have incorporated
into the appropriate sections of the report, these officials provided
further comments that they believe should be noted in the report.
EPA believes that the report should acknowledge some of the
limitations affecting our estimates of the number of de minimis
parties and PRPs at municipal co-disposal sites. Although we stated
in the draft report that the estimates represented a minimum range of
possible de minimis parties and PRPs at co-disposal sites, we agreed
to point out in the final report that these estimates do not include
parties associated with hazardous waste sites that had not been added
to the NPL in 1993, have been added since 1993, or might be added in
the future. We also included in the report EPA's estimates of the
number of sites with de minimis parties and the number of co-disposal
landfills that may be listed on the NPL in the future.
EPA officials also commented that we did not use alternative
methodologies to estimate the number of de minimis parties. We based
our estimate on the information in EPA's RPM Site Database because
EPA had identified it as the most comprehensive source of recent data
on each NPL site. In reviewing our draft report, EPA suggested that
we extrapolate an estimate of the number of de minimis parties from
information in its Transactional Database on the sites where the
waste contributions of individual parties are known. We determined,
however, that this approach was unlikely to yield a more certain
estimate of the number of de minimis parties. According to EPA
officials, the Transactional Database includes data on a relatively
small number of NPL sites and these sites are not representative of
NPL sites in general.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
To identify the number of de minimis parties and of PRPs associated
with municipal co-disposal sites, we obtained and analyzed data from
EPA's RPM Site Database. Given the database's limitations, we
analyzed the available data on two different categories of PRPs to
arrive at the best possible estimate of the number of de minimis
parties. These categories included parties identified by EPA
regional remedial project managers as (1) likely to be considered de
minimis parties and (2) likely to have contributed less than 1
percent of the waste at a site. In identifying municipal co-disposal
sites on the NPL, we relied on EPA's listing of 245 nonfederal NPL
sites that received both municipal nonhazardous and industrial
hazardous wastes. We conducted our work from November 1995 through
February 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
the Administrator, EPA, and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
I.
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.
Stanley J. Czerwinski, Associate Director
Susan D. Kladiva, Assistant Director
Vincent P. Price, Evaluator-in-Charge
Derek Updegraff, Senior Evaluator
*** End of document. ***