Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous
Waste Sites (Letter Report, 03/31/97, GAO/RCED-97-20).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund cleanup efforts, focusing on trends
in the time taken to: (1) evaluate and process hazardous waste sites for
possible placement on the National Priorities List (NPL); and (2) clean
up these sites following their listing.

GAO noted that: (1) EPA took an average of 9.4 years, calculated from
the date of each site's discovery, to evaluate and process the
nonfederal sites it added to the NPL in 1996; (2) while this evaluation
and processing time shows some improvement over 1995, when listing took
an average of 11.4 years after discovery for nonfederal sites, it is
generally longer than for prior years; (3) the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires EPA to evaluate nonfederal
sites for listing, when warranted, within 4 years of their discovery;
(4) listing decisions were made within 4 years of discovery for 43
percent of the 8,931 nonfederal sites discovered from 1987 through 1991;
(5) the average time between discovery and listing for federal sites has
also increased over the years, rising from about 6.5 years for sites
listed in 1990 to 8.3 years for sites listed in 1995; (6) much of the
increase in the time taken to list both federal and nonfederal sites has
occurred in the latter stages of the evaluation process, after sites
have been inspected and before final decisions about the need to list
them are made; (7) EPA officials attributed the increases to a number of
factors, including the large numbers of sites initially referred to the
agency for evaluation and EPA's emphasis on completing work on already
listed sites; (8) long waits for listing may continue because a large
number of sites are potentially eligible for Superfund and a limited
number of sites are being added to the program each year; (9) nonfederal
cleanup projects completed from 1986 through 1989 were finished, on
average, 3.9 years after sites were placed on the NPL; (10) by 1996,
however, nonfederal cleanup completions were averaging 10.6 years; (11)
SARA did not set deadlines for completing cleanups within a certain
number of years, but EPA set an expectation for 1993 for its regions to
complete a cleanup within 5 years of a site's listing; (12) ten percent
of the cleanup projects at nonfederal sites listed from 1986 through
1990 were finished within 5 years of a site's listing; (13) federal
agencies took, on average, 6.6 years from the date of listing to finish
the cleanup projects they completed in fiscal year 1996; (14) much of
the time taken to complete cleanups is spent during the early planning
phases of the cleanup process, when cleanup remedies are selected; (15)
less time has been spent on actual construction work at sites than on t*

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-20
     TITLE:  Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of 
             Hazardous Waste Sites
      DATE:  03/31/97
   SUBJECT:  Hazardous substances
             Site selection
             Environment evaluation
             Waste disposal
             Environmental policies
             Inspection
             Pollution control
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Priorities List
             Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
             EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
             Liability Information System
             Superfund Program
             
******************************************************************
** 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 Government Reform and Oversight,
House of Representatives

March 1997

SUPERFUND - TIMES TO COMPLETE THE
ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

GAO/RCED-97-20

Duration of Superfund Process

(160329)


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

  CBO - Congressional Budget Office
  CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
     Liability Act of 1980
  CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
     Liability Information System
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  NPL - National Priorities List
  RI/FS - remedial investigation and feasibility study
  SACM - Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
  SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

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


B-275267

March 31, 1997

The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman, Committee on Government
 Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The pace of Superfund cleanups has been a long-standing concern of
the Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  In the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the
Congress set time goals for EPA and federal agencies to (1) evaluate
individual nonfederal and federal sites for placement, when
warranted, on the National Priorities List (NPL)--Superfund's list of
the nation's worst hazardous waste sites--and (2) begin various
cleanup actions.  In 1992, EPA introduced several initiatives
designed to expedite Superfund cleanups. 

Given the congressional interest in the pace of Superfund cleanups,
you asked us to examine trends in the time taken to (1) evaluate and
process hazardous waste sites for possible placement on the NPL and
(2) clean up these sites following their listing. 


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

EPA took an average of 9.4 years--calculated from the date of each
site's discovery--to evaluate and process the nonfederal sites it
added to the National Priorities List in 1996.  While this evaluation
and processing time shows some improvement over 1995, when listing
took an average of 11.4 years after discovery for nonfederal sites,
it is generally longer than for prior years.  For example, listing
took an average of 5.8 years after discovery for the nonfederal sites
added to the National Priorities List from 1986 to 1990.  SARA
requires EPA to evaluate nonfederal sites for listing, when
warranted, within 4 years of their discovery.  Listing decisions were
made within 4 years of discovery for 43 percent of the 8,931
nonfederal sites discovered from 1987 through 1991.  The average time
between discovery and listing for federal sites has also increased
over the years, rising from about 6.5 years for sites listed in 1990
to 8.3 years for sites listed in 1995.\1

Much of the increase in the time taken to list both federal and
nonfederal sites has occurred in the latter stages of the evaluation
process, after sites have been inspected and before final decisions
about the need to list them are made.  EPA officials attributed the
increases to a number of factors, including the large numbers of
sites initially referred to the agency for evaluation and EPA's
emphasis on completing work on already listed sites.  Long waits for
listing may continue because a large number of sites are potentially
eligible for Superfund and a limited number of sites are being added
to the program each year. 

Cleanup completion times have also lengthened.  Nonfederal cleanup
projects completed from 1986 through 1989 were finished, on average,
3.9 years after sites were placed on the National Priorities List. 
By 1996, however, nonfederal cleanup completions were averaging 10.6
years.  SARA did not set deadlines for completing cleanups within a
certain number of years, but EPA set an expectation for 1993 for its
regions to complete a cleanup within 5 years of a site's listing. 
Ten percent of the cleanup projects at nonfederal sites listed from
1986 through 1990 were finished within 5 years of the site's listing. 
Federal agencies took, on average, 6.6 years from the date of listing
to finish the cleanup projects they completed in fiscal year 1996. 
Much of the time taken to complete cleanups is spent during the early
planning phases of the cleanup process, when cleanup remedies are
selected.  Less time has been spent on actual construction work at
sites than on the selection of remedies.  EPA officials attributed
the increases in the time taken to complete cleanups to the growing
complexity of the cleanup problems at sites, the agency's efforts to
reach settlements with parties responsible for the contamination at
sites, and resource constraints. 


--------------------
\1 No federal sites were listed in 1996. 


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

In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as
Superfund, to clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. 
The act gave EPA the authority to clean up contaminated sites or to
compel the parties responsible for the contamination to perform or
pay for the cleanups.  As of November 6, 1996, there were 1,205 sites
on the NPL:  1,054 nonfederal and 151 federal. 

Cleanup actions fall into two broad categories:  removal actions and
remedial actions.  Removal actions are usually short-term actions
designed to stabilize or clean up a hazardous waste site that poses
an immediate threat to human health or the environment.  Remedial
actions are generally longer-term and usually costlier actions aimed
at achieving a permanent remedy. 

To promote timely cleanups, the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 set numerical cleanup goals for
all NPL sites.  SARA provided that, for facilities discovered after
the act was passed, a facility shall be evaluated for placement on
the NPL within 4 years of the site's discovery if EPA determines on
the basis of a site inspection or preliminary assessment that such an
evaluation is warranted.  For certain contaminated federal sites
identified as of October 17, 1986 (the date of SARA's enactment), the
act required EPA to ensure the performance of a preliminary
assessment of each such facility within 18 months (1.5 years) after
October 17, 1986.  In addition, the act required EPA to ensure the
evaluation and placement of such sites on the NPL, if appropriate,
within 30 months (2.5 years) after October 17, 1986. 

In 1992, EPA implemented the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. 
This model introduced several initiatives designed to accomplish
Superfund cleanups in less time and at less cost.  The initiatives
included (1) integrated site assessments--efforts to reduce
redundancies in data collection, (2) non-time-critical
removals--efforts to reduce risks sooner by accelerating some cleanup
actions, and (3) presumptive remedies--efforts to reduce the costs
and time to study various cleanup alternatives by identifying in
advance the most effective cleanup remedy for a given situation. 

We reported\2 last year that EPA's regions were not effectively using
one of the initiatives--the authority to use non-time-critical
removals to save time and money.  We found that although these
removals show promise for expediting Superfund cleanups, budgetary
and legal issues have constrained their wider use.  EPA site managers
estimate that using non-time-critical removals instead of the full
remedial process can, on average, cut the time for similar cleanup
actions by about 2 years and reduce the costs by about half a million
dollars.  Compared to the full remedial process, the removal process
considerably shortens the evaluation (study and design) steps but may
conduct similar cleanup actions. 

EPA, other federal agencies, and state governments all play roles in
the Superfund process.  EPA administers the program, evaluates
nonfederal sites for placement on the NPL, oversees cleanups
performed by the parties responsible for contaminating sites, and
performs cleanups itself when these parties cannot be found.  Federal
agencies are responsible, under EPA's supervision, for evaluating and
cleaning up their own properties.  States may enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with EPA to carry out certain Superfund
actions, including site evaluation and cleanup oversight. 

For this report, we asked EPA to provide us with data on the length
of time taken by EPA, authorized states, and federal agencies to
evaluate sites for possible placement on the NPL, to complete
cleanups of listed sites, and to accomplish the steps leading to
listing and cleanup.  The source of this information was EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), which is the official repository of
Superfund data.  For more detailed information on the time taken to
complete steps in the evaluation and cleanup phases of the Superfund
process, see appendixes I and II, respectively.  Appendix III
presents the numbers of observations, by year, included in the
average time for each processing step (e.g., date of placement on the
NPL) depicted in the report's figures. 

We used a "date of event" analysis (e.g., date of a site's placement
on the NPL, date of completing a cleanup) in presenting data on
completion times because of its usefulness in showing the
productivity and management of Superfund resources over time.  (See
app.  IV.) This analysis considers the actual number of listings,
cleanups completed, or intermediate steps completed in a given year
regardless of when the sites were discovered or placed on the NPL. 
Our approach is consistent with a method used by EPA in its
management reports to measure the program's accomplishments.  This
"date of event" analysis contrasts with a "date of submission"
analysis, which would track processing times by the year sites were
discovered or listed.  Both methods are accepted forms of analysis. 
The date of submission method can be useful for measuring the effects
of policy changes.  We did not use this method in our analysis
because the changes EPA made to accelerate the Superfund process are
too recent for their effects to be reflected in the available data. 

We also attempted to measure trends in the time taken to complete
listings and cleanups, using SARA's goals and EPA's own standards as
benchmarks.  Because these standards set 4- and 5-year completion
goals, our analysis was limited to sites discovered or listed not
later than 1991.  Because EPA's initiatives to expedite cleanups were
introduced after this time, their effect on achieving the standards
cannot yet be determined using this approach.  We are, however,
currently reviewing the implementation and possible effects of these
initiatives. 


--------------------
\2 A Superfund Tool for More Efficient Cleanups (GAO/RCED-96-134R,
Apr.  15, 1996). 


   LISTING TIMES HAVE INCREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The length of time between discovering a site\3 and placing it on the
NPL has increased significantly over the life of the Superfund
program.  (See fig.  1.) According to EPA, this increase is due
largely to the backlog of sites referred to the agency for
evaluation, additional processing requirements, and a reduction in
the number of sites added annually to Superfund. 

   Figure 1:  Average Time From
   Site Discovery to Placement on
   the NPL

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  The broken lines indicate the years in which no sites were
placed on the NPL. 

Figure 1 shows a generally increasing trend in the time taken to
place sites on the NPL following their discovery.  In 1996, EPA took
an average of 9.4 years to list nonfederal sites and, in 1995, 8.3
years to list federal sites.  SARA's goal was for EPA to evaluate
nonfederal sites for listing, when warranted, within 4 years of their
discovery.  For federal sites, SARA's goal was for EPA to evaluate
certain sites identified as of October 17, 1986, within 2.5 years of
that date.  EPA established a policy goal to complete preliminary
assessments and site inspections of federal sites discovered after
October 17, 1986, within 1.5 years of their discovery.  EPA made
decisions\4 about listing nonfederal sites within 4 years of their
discovery for 43 percent of the 8,931 sites discovered from fiscal
year 1987 through fiscal year 1991.  However, as shown in figure 2,
the percentage of sites for which decisions were made within 4 years
of discovery decreased in each succeeding year, from 51 percent in
fiscal year 1987 to 36 percent in fiscal year 1991. 

   Figure 2:  Percentage of
   Nonfederal Listing Decisions
   Made Within 4 Years of
   Discovery

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

According to EPA officials, decisions not to list sites are now being
made faster than during the period from 1987 through 1991, when many
listing decisions were delayed pending a revision of the standards
for evaluating hazardous waste sites.  According to EPA, most sites
are now excluded from further consideration for Superfund after an
early assessment of their conditions. 

EPA has made some progress in reducing the time between discovering a
site and completing certain steps required to place it on the NPL. 
Specifically, the average time from discovery to the completion of
initial studies at nonfederal sites has declined from its peak in the
late 1980s.  (See app.  I.) In addition, in 1996, the average time
taken to list nonfederal sites fell to 9.4 years from 11.4 years in
1995.  However, the time between discovery and listing for the seven
sites placed on the NPL in the first quarter of fiscal year 1997
moved up again to an average of 11.2 years.  These sites were
discovered as recently as 1993 and as long ago as 1979. 

Although average processing times have lengthened, EPA can move
quickly to list some sites if circumstances warrant.  For example, in
1996, it listed three sites within about 9 to 12 months of their
discovery, when the Public Health Service's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry issued a public health advisory
concerning the sites.  EPA used an expedited process that bypassed
its normal evaluation process to list these sites.  In addition, EPA
may undertake removal actions at sites to deal with imminent threats
regardless of whether the sites are listed.  However, listing is
necessary before the full range of problems presented by many sites
can be addressed under Superfund. 

EPA officials gave a number of reasons why assessment times have
grown.  They said that the Superfund program started with a backlog
of sites awaiting evaluation.\5 They also cited changes in the
program, such as revised evaluation standards requiring the
reevaluation of sites and the need to seek a state's concurrence for
listing a site.  In addition, the number of sites placed on the NPL
in recent years has declined. 

The officials also said that the agency's current priority is to
finish cleaning up the sites that have already been listed. 
Accordingly, EPA reallocated its budget between 1994 and 1996,
cutting the funds for assessing sites by some 50 percent.  The
challenge for the future is indicated by the large number of sites
that could enter the Superfund program in the future and the small
number that have been placed on the NPL in the recent past.  In a
1996 report,\6

we estimated that between 1,400 and 2,300 sites could be added to the
program in the future.  In contrast, 16 sites per year were admitted,
on average, from 1992 through 1996. 

EPA officials said that the listing of new sites is likely to remain
constrained and that EPA is emphasizing the use of alternative
strategies to clean up sites more quickly or to transfer the
responsibility for cleanups to other parties.  These alternative
strategies include (1) assigning more cleanups to the removal rather
than the remedial program, (2) expanding state cleanup programs, and
(3) encouraging voluntary cleanups by responsible parties. 


--------------------
\3 In this report, the date of "site discovery" is the date that a
site is entered into CERCLIS. 

\4 Listing decisions include decisions to propose sites for inclusion
on the NPL and decisions that no further Superfund action is
warranted at sites. 

\5 Of the 40,665 sites referred to EPA for Superfund evaluation
through 1996, 14,697 had been referred by 1982. 

\6 Impact on States of Capping Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-96-106R,
Mar.  18, 1996). 


   CLEANUP COMPLETION TIMES HAVE
   INCREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

For sites with completed cleanups, the average time between the
site's placement on the NPL and the cleanup's completion increased
significantly from 1986 to 1996.  For nonfederal sites, the time
required to complete cleanups increased from 2.4 years in 1986 to
10.6 years in 1996.  For federal sites, the time required to complete
cleanups increased from about 3.3 years in 1990 to 6.6 years in
1996.\7 The increase in overall cleanup times was accompanied by a
marked increase in the time taken to select cleanup remedies--a
period that includes the waiting time between placement on the NPL
and the start of remedy selection studies, the performance of the
studies themselves, and in some cases, negotiations to reach
settlements with the parties responsible for the contamination.  For
nonfederal sites, this phase was completed in about 2.5 years in 1986
but about 8 years in 1996.  In contrast, the average time taken to
construct the actual cleanup remedy for the nonfederal sites
completing this cleanup phase in 1996 was 2.1 years. 

For our analysis, we considered a cleanup to be complete as of the
date of EPA's remedial action report indicating that construction has
been completed.  According to its procedures, EPA approves this
report when a cleanup remedy has been put in place at an operable
unit and, except where long-term operation is needed, has achieved
the required cleanup levels.  EPA would consider remedial action
complete when a system for pumping and treating contaminated
groundwater has been installed, even though the system may have to
operate for years before the contamination is reduced to acceptable
levels.  Our analysis of cleanup times considers whole sites as well
as the cleanup projects (operable units) into which sites are often
divided.\8 Since EPA and federal agencies have cleaned up more
operable units than whole sites, measuring the progress in cleaning
up the operable units gives a more complete picture of the program's
activity. 

Figure 3 shows the average time between placing nonfederal and
federal sites on the NPL and completing cleanups at operable units. 

   Figure 3:  Average Time From
   Placement on the NPL to
   Completion of Cleanups at
   Operable Units

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As figure 3 shows, the time taken to complete cleanups of operable
units has grown longer at both nonfederal and federal Superfund
sites.  In addition, the time taken to complete the principal steps
in the process leading to the completion of cleanups has also grown
longer (see app.  II.) In 1996, cleanup completions averaged 10.6
years for nonfederal operable units and 6.6 years for federal
operable units. 

As noted, SARA set goals for starting certain cleanup actions, but
not for completing the cleanups.  For fiscal year 1993, however, EPA
set an expectation for its regions to complete a cleanup within 5
years of a site's listing.  At nonfederal sites listed from 1986
through 1990, 10 percent of the operable units were cleaned up within
5 years of their site's listing.\9 As shown in figure 4, the
percentages of operable units cleaned up within 5 years increased
from 7 percent for sites listed in fiscal year 1986 to 15 percent for
sites listed in fiscal year 1990.  EPA officials said that they now
believe that sites will be cleaned up within 8 to 10 years of their
listing. 

   Figure 4:  Percentage of
   Nonfederal Operable Units
   Cleaned Up Within 5 Years of
   Listing

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  No nonfederal sites were placed on the NPL in fiscal year
1988. 

We also analyzed data on the time taken to clean up entire Superfund
sites (as opposed to operable units).  From 1986 to 1996, EPA
recorded cleanups for 592 operable units at nonfederal facilities and
for 118 operable units at federal facilities.  During this same
period, EPA recorded cleanups for 226 nonfederal sites and for only 7
federal sites.  Figure 5 shows the average duration of cleanups for
the 226 nonfederal sites recorded as cleaned up from 1986 to 1996. 

   Figure 5:  Average Time From
   Placement on the NPL to
   Completion of Cleanups at Sites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Figure 5 shows that the time taken to clean up entire sites (as
opposed to operable units) has also increased.  In 1996, cleanup
completions averaged 10.5 years.  The averages for cleaning up both
operable units and entire sites from 1986 through 1996 were almost
identical:  7.7 years and 7.9 years, respectively.  However, the
upward trend in completion times for operable units may result in
longer completion times for whole sites in the future. 

EPA officials said that the upward trend in cleanup times may be
linked to the completion of more difficult cleanups.  Our work
supports this explanation.  In September 1994, we reported\10 that
EPA's data revealed longer average cleanup times for ongoing projects
than for those already completed.  In that report, we said that
despite EPA's efforts to expedite cleanups, cleanups may take longer
because of the greater complexity of these ongoing projects.  In
addition, we reported that EPA had shifted funding away from the
remedy selection phase and toward the design and construction phases
of the cleanup process.  As indicated, the time taken to select
remedies has increased greatly over the years.  EPA officials also
said that the effort to find the parties responsible for
contaminating sites and reach cleanup settlements with them can
increase cleanup times.  They also thought that funding had affected
the pace of cleanups.  For example, they said that because of budget
constraints, EPA was not able to fund $200 million to $300 million in
cleanup projects in fiscal year 1996. 


--------------------
\7 Average cleanup times for federal facilities will continue to
grow, since many large federal cleanup projects remain to be
completed.  For example, the Department of Energy expects that
cleanups will continue at its sites through the year 2070. 

\8 EPA or another federal agency may divide a site into multiple
"operable units" corresponding to different physical areas at a site
or different environmental media (such as soil or groundwater) to be
cleaned up.  Federal sites, which include military installations and
major Department of Energy facilities, are often much larger
(averaging 5.9 operable units) than nonfederal sites (averaging 1.8
operable units). 

\9 At 4 percent of the nonfederal sites listed from 1986 to 1990,
cleanups of all operable units were completed within 5 years of the
site's listing. 

\10 Superfund:  Status, Cost, and Timeliness of Hazardous Waste Site
Cleanups (GAO/RCED-94-256, Sept.  21, 1994). 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The time taken to evaluate hazardous waste sites for inclusion in the
Superfund program and to complete their cleanup once they have
entered the program has increased over the life of the program. 
Sites that have recently completed the Superfund listing process have
taken over 9 years and those that have recently completed the cleanup
process have taken over 10 years. 

Increasing completion times are a concern because many listing and
cleanup activities remain in the Superfund program.  EPA has made
progress at many NPL sites--completing the construction of remedies
at more than 400 sites--but construction work has yet to be completed
at about 800 sites.  Furthermore, although only 16 sites, on average,
have been added to the NPL annually in the last several years, 1,400
to 2,300 sites could be added in the future.  If entry into the
Superfund program remains constrained, the listing of sites that are
hazardous enough to qualify for the program could be prolonged,
increasing the importance of EPA's using a risk-based approach to
identify the worst sites.  Additionally, given the increased
complexity of cleanups and the volume of activity that the program
now handles, cleanups may not be completed as quickly as in the early
days of the program.  However, the steady increase in completion
times for cleanups, especially for the earlier stages of the cleanup
process ending with the selection of a remedy, raises concerns about
the future pace of cleanups.  Efforts to shorten the time required
for future cleanups will have to deal effectively with delays in the
earlier part of the cleanup process. 

EPA officials believe that recent initiatives will speed the listing
and cleanup of sites.  They said they expect to report on the effects
of some of these initiatives in the near future. 

GAO is not making recommendations in this report because EPA has
recently implemented administrative reforms to accelerate the
Superfund process.  In future reviews, we will be evaluating the
implementation of these reforms. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for its review and comment. 
EPA provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix V,
along with our responses.  Overall, EPA believed that the methodology
used in the report to show time trends in the completion of Superfund
processing steps is misleading and fails to acknowledge EPA's recent
efforts to improve the timeliness of Superfund cleanups. 

EPA questioned our method of presenting data on the history of the
program.  It said that, in analyzing trends in the duration of stages
in the Superfund process, it prefers to compare the starting dates
rather than the ending dates for completed stages.  For example, in
analyzing the time taken to place sites on the NPL, it prefers to
compare the years in which sites were discovered rather than the
years in which the sites were listed.  Similarly, in presenting
trends in the duration of cleanups, it prefers to compare the years
in which sites were listed rather than the years in which cleanups
were completed.  In contrast, our report analyzes trends in duration
by comparing the ending dates for completed stages, thereby
presenting a historical record of the time taken to complete the
various stages involved in listing and cleaning up nationally
significant hazardous waste sites.  As noted, our approach is
consistent with a method used by EPA in its management reports to
measure the Superfund program's accomplishments. 

We do not believe that the method EPA's letter says we should have
used to present data on the history of the program produces more
equitable results than our method.  In fact, the method EPA
recommended to us would always show improvement in processing times
because the data for later years would exclude a higher proportion of
ongoing work than the data for earlier years.  For example, under the
method EPA recommended, the average processing time for site
inspections--calculated from the date of each site's discovery--was
between 1,300 and 1,400 days for sites discovered in 1985 and between
100 and 200 days for sites discovered in 1996--a clear downward trend
(see app.  V).  However, for the sites discovered in 1985, 92.2
percent of the inspections had been completed, while for the sites
discovered in 1996, only 3.3 percent of the inspections had been
completed.  As time passes and more of the sites discovered in 1996
are inspected, the average processing time for these inspected sites
will increase, perhaps substantially.  Thus, under EPA's method, we
will not know if there is a true downward trend in processing times
between 1985 and 1996 until sometime in the future (see app.  V,
comment 4). 

EPA believes strongly that the trend data presented in this report do
not capture the effects of the agency's recent initiatives to reform
the Superfund program.  EPA listed a number of the program's recent
accomplishments.  EPA said that its reforms have brought relevant
stakeholders into the process earlier, increased the number of small
parties who are protected from liability, adopted liability
allocations worked out by the relevant parties, and reduced the time
required for and the costs associated with Superfund cleanups. 
Through the full implementation of its Superfund administrative
reforms, EPA expects to achieve a 25-percent reduction in the time
required to clean up sites.  EPA also stated that the Superfund
program is faster and more efficient today than in the past, and that
the agency has reduced cleanup costs, reduced the delays attributable
to liability lawsuits, and freed more than 14,000 parties from
cleanup liability.  Furthermore, according to EPA, cleanups are
complete at more than 25 percent of the NPL sites and well under way
at another 35 percent.  It also pointed out that 75 percent of
today's cleanups are paid for by responsible parties, cutting the
taxpayers' burden.  Finally, EPA cited factors such as budget
shortfalls, legislative and administrative weaknesses in the current
program, and the continuing influx of large and complex sites as
barriers undermining its efforts to increase the pace of assessments
and cleanups. 

We agree that the data in our report do not isolate any effects of
recent policy or procedural changes on processing times.  EPA did not
present any specific data to substantiate its claims that its recent
initiatives have accelerated Superfund cleanups, although it said
that such data are currently being collected.  EPA also provided
other technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated as
appropriate. 


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

We conducted our work from November 1995 through February 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  A
detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology appears
in appendix IV. 

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
the Administrator, EPA, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense,
Energy, and the Interior.  We will also make copies available to
others on request. 

We hope this information will assist you in considering the
reauthorization of the Superfund legislation.  If you have any
further questions, please call me at (202) 512-6520.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Stanley J.  Czerwinski
Associate Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues


TIME TAKEN TO ACCOMPLISH THE
PRINCIPAL STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF
PLACING SITES ON THE NPL
=========================================================== Appendix I

We examined the time taken to accomplish the principal steps in the
process of placing a site on the National Priorities List (NPL)--the
preliminary assessment, the site inspection, and the proposal to list
the site as a national priority. 


   STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF LISTING
   A SITE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation implementing
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) outlines a formal process for placing hazardous
waste sites on the NPL.  (See fig.  I.1)

   Figure I.1:  How a Site Gets on
   the NPL

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EPA. 

The listing process starts when EPA receives a report of a
potentially hazardous waste site.  A state government or private
citizen most often reports a nonfederal site.  A responsible federal
agency reports a potentially contaminated federal facility to EPA for
placement on a list called the federal facility docket.  EPA enters a
potentially contaminated private site into a database known as the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS).  EPA or the state in which the
potentially contaminated nonfederal site is located then conducts a
preliminary assessment to decide whether the site poses a potential
threat to human health and the environment.  A federal agency
performs the preliminary assessment of its site under EPA's
oversight. 

If the site presents a serious, imminent threat, EPA or the
responsible federal agency may take immediate action.  If the
preliminary assessment shows that contamination exists but does not
pose an imminent threat, or if the site continues to pose a problem
following an immediate action, EPA or the responsible federal agency,
with EPA's supervision, may proceed to the next step of the
evaluation process, the site inspection, which takes a more detailed
look at possible contamination.  If at any point the site is found
not to pose a potential threat, the site can be eliminated from
further consideration under CERCLA. 

Using information from the site inspection, EPA applies the hazard
ranking system to evaluate the federal or nonfederal site's potential
risk to public health and the environment.  The hazard ranking system
is a numerically based scoring system that uses information from the
preliminary assessment and the site inspection to assign each site a
score ranging from 0 to 100.  This score is used as a screening tool
to determine whether a site should be considered for further action
under CERCLA.  A site with a score of 28.5 or higher is considered
for placement on the NPL.  EPA first proposes a site for placement on
the NPL and then, after receiving public comments, either places it
on the NPL or removes it from further consideration.  The hazardous
waste sites on the NPL represent the highest priorities for cleanup
nationwide. 


   PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Figure I.2 shows, for nonfederal and federal sites, the average time
taken to complete a preliminary assessment of conditions at a site
following its discovery. 

   Figure I.2:  Average Time From
   Site Discovery to Completion of
   the Preliminary Assessment

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Figure I.2 shows that from 1987 to 1989, EPA sharply reduced the
average time between discovery and completion of the preliminary
assessment at nonfederal sites.  EPA officials attributed this
decrease to EPA's effort to reduce the time for completing
preliminary assessments following the passage of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). 

After SARA's passage, EPA adopted a policy of completing a
preliminary assessment within 1 year of a site's discovery.  The
preliminary assessment was completed within a year of discovery at
about two-thirds of the sites that were discovered after fiscal year
1987 and were preliminarily assessed by the end of fiscal year 1995. 
The officials said that EPA's efforts to complete assessments within
1 year had reduced the backlog of sites needing assessments and
shortened the time required for the assessments.  However, since
1989, the time from discovery to completion of the preliminary
assessment has gradually increased. 

For federal sites, the average time between discovery and completion
of the preliminary assessment has fluctuated over the years but has
consistently exceeded SARA's goals.  In fiscal year 1996, the
preliminary assessment was completed for federal sites, on average,
2.5 years after discovery.  SARA specified that EPA take steps to
ensure that the assessment for all sites entered on EPA's first
federal facility docket be completed within 1.5 years.\11 An EPA
policy extended SARA's deadline to all subsequent dockets.  EPA
officials told us that federal sites are typically larger and more
complex than nonfederal sites and therefore their assessment requires
more work and more time to complete.  The officials also said that
studies prepared by federal agencies often lack needed data,
requiring EPA to ask the agencies to do more work to satisfy CERCLA's
requirements.\12

The officials also noted that EPA does not have much leverage over
how federal agencies conduct their preliminary assessments. 


--------------------
\11 We reported in Superfund:  Backlog of Unevaluated Federal
Facilities Slows Cleanup Efforts (GAO/RCED-93-119, July 20, 1993)
that EPA had not met SARA's deadlines for evaluating federal
facilities for possible placement on the NPL. 

\12 We reported this problem in Federal Facilities:  Consistent
Relative Risk Evaluations Needed for Prioritizing Cleanups
(GAO/RCED-96-150, June 7, 1996). 


   SITE INSPECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Figure I.3 shows, for nonfederal and federal sites, the average time
between discovery and completion of the site inspection. 

   Figure I.3:  Average Time From
   Site Discovery to Completion of
   the Site Inspection

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As figure I.3 shows, the average time from discovery to completion of
the site inspection has declined in recent years for both nonfederal
and federal sites.  EPA has made progress over the past 5 years in
reducing the time from discovery to completion of the site inspection
for nonfederal sites.  In 1991, EPA took an average of 6.6 years to
complete the site inspection, whereas in 1996, it brought this
average down to 4.1 years.  EPA officials told us that the time for
completing site inspections increased until 1991 because EPA
concentrated its resources on completing preliminary assessments
within 12 months and this effort created a backlog of site
inspections.  They said that after reducing the backlog of
preliminary assessments, EPA focused on reducing the backlog of site
inspections, bringing about the recent improvement in the time for
completing site inspections. 

For federal sites, EPA's policy was that inspections were to be
completed within 1.5 years.  In 1996, inspections took 6.5 years to
complete, on average, from the time of site discovery. 


   PROPOSING A SITE AS A NATIONAL
   PRIORITY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

Figure I.4 shows, for nonfederal and federal sites, the average time
between completing the site inspection and proposing to place the
site on the NPL. 

   Figure I.4:  Average Time From
   Completion of Site Inspection
   to Proposal for Listing

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As figure I.4 shows, the average time required to propose a site for
placement on the NPL generally increased for both nonfederal and
federal sites from 1986 to 1996.  For nonfederal sites proposed for
listing in 1986, the proposal took 20 months from the completion of
the site inspection, compared with 6 years in 1996.  For federal
sites proposed for listing in 1986, the proposal took only 10 months
from the completion of the site inspection, compared with 5.5 years
in 1994, the last year in which a substantial number of federal sites
were proposed for listing. 

According to EPA officials, the increases in the time required to
propose sites for listing are partly attributable to revisions in the
hazard ranking system mandated by SARA.  SARA directed EPA to obtain
additional data so that the system could more accurately assess the
relative risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and
facilities nominated to the NPL.  EPA officials said that the agency
decided to limit listings while it was revising the hazard ranking
system.  EPA announced in April 1987 that it was considering
revisions to the system, and in December 1988 it requested comments
on proposed revisions.  In December 1990, EPA promulgated final
revisions to the hazard ranking system. 

EPA officials said that the revisions to the hazard ranking system
led EPA to seek additional data on 5,275 nonfederal sites and 27
federal sites from 1992 through 1996.  For these sites, EPA developed
a temporary intermediate step--referred to as a site inspection
prioritization--to gather the additional information needed on the
sites' risks to human health.  EPA officials also said that the time
taken to assess sites has grown because of the large backlog of sites
at the start of the Superfund program, enforcement activities, and
the need to seek a state's concurrence for listing a site.  In
addition, the number of sites placed on the NPL has declined in
recent years. 


   DURATION OF EVALUATION STEPS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

We attempted to obtain data from CERCLIS showing the duration of some
of the major steps in the process of evaluating sites for placement
on the NPL:  the preliminary assessment, the site inspection, and the
site inspection prioritization.  However, the starting date for many
of these steps is not recorded in the database\13 .  For example, the
beginning and ending dates are available for only 27 percent (4,693
of 17,469) of the site inspections completed at nonfederal sites
through fiscal year 1995.  However, the data that are available
indicate that these steps account for only a portion of the total
time taken to evaluate a site for listing.  The available data show
that in fiscal year 1995, preliminary assessments at nonfederal sites
were completed on average in 8 months; site inspections in 12 months;
and sites inspection prioritizations in 12 months.  These numbers
suggest that a substantial portion of the time between discovery and
listing elapses while a site is awaiting the next step in the
process. 


--------------------
\13 Because the starting dates for some processing phases were not
indicated, we also measured durations from the date of discovery to
the end of these processing phases.  (See figs.  I.2 and I.3)


TIME TAKEN TO ACCOMPLISH THE
PRINCIPAL STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF
CLEANING UP SITES
========================================================== Appendix II

In addition to measuring the total time taken from the placement of a
site on the NPL to the completion of its cleanup, we examined the
time taken to complete two of the principal intermediate steps--the
preparation of the record of decision, which documents the final
remedy selected after completing the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS), and the remedial design, which includes
the technical drawings and specifications for the selected remedy. 
We also obtained data on the duration of the RI/FS, the remedial
design, and the remedial action. 


   STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF
   CLEANING UP A SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

EPA's regulation implementing CERCLA outlines the remedial process
for cleaning up sites on the NPL.  (see fig.  II.1)

   Figure II.1:  How Sites Are
   Cleaned Up

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EPA. 

The remedial responses to an NPL site consists of several phases.  If
a site is divided into discrete cleanup projects, known as operable
units, each of the operable units may pass through these phases. 
First, through the RI/FS, the conditions at a site are studied,
problems are identified, and alternative methods to clean up the site
are evaluated.  Then, a final remedy is selected, and the decision is
documented in a record of decision.  Next, during an engineering
phase called the remedial design, technical drawings and
specifications are developed for the selected remedy.  Finally, in
the remedial action phase, a cleanup contractor begins constructing
the remedy according to the remedial design.  Once EPA, in
consultation with the state in which the site is located, determines
that the work at a site has achieved all of the desired cleanup
goals, the site can be removed (deleted) from the NPL. 


   SELECTING A REMEDY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

Figure II.2 shows, for nonfederal and federal operable units, the
average time taken from the placement of a site on the NPL to the
selection of a remedy for its cleanup. 

   Figure II.2:  Average Time From
   Placing a Site on the NPL to
   Selecting a Remedy

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Figure II.2 shows that the average time taken to select a remedy at
nonfederal sites has steadily increased over the years.  In 1986,
selecting a remedy after a site's listing took an average of 2.6
years, compared with an average of 8.1 years in 1996.  The average
time taken to select a remedy at federal sites has also increased
over the years, from an average of 2 years in 1990 to an average of
6.3 years in 1996. 

The cleanup phase that ends with the selection of a remedy comprises
two periods:  the time between listing and the start of the RI/FS and
the time for the RI/FS.  Both of these periods add significantly to
the total time taken to complete cleanups.  For nonfederal sites at
which RI/FSs were begun from 1991 through 1996, an average of 4.5
years had elapsed since the sites were proposed for listing.  For
federal sites at which RI/FSs were begun during the same years, an
average of 3.5 years had elapsed.  For the nonfederal sites at which
RI/FSs were completed in 1995 (the last year for which complete data
were available), the RI/FS took an average of 4.4 years to complete,
or about 2 years more than in 1986.  For federal sites, the RI/FSs
took an average of 4.4 years to complete in 1996, up about 2.5 years
from 1991. 


   DESIGNING A REMEDY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Figure II.3 shows, for nonfederal and federal operable units, the
average time taken to develop the remedial design, or the technical
drawings and specifications for the selected remedy.  The elapsed
time is measured from the date of a site's placement on the NPL. 

   Figure II.3:  Average Time From
   Placing a Site on the NPL to
   Developing a Remedial Design

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As figure II.3 indicates, remedial designs are generally completed
more quickly at federal sites than at nonfederal sites.  EPA
officials attributed this difference to the fact that federal
cleanups do not usually involve negotiations or litigation with
private responsible parties. 


   DURATION OF CLEANUP STEPS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

EPA's records indicate that the actual time taken recently to
complete the latter phases of the cleanup process--the remedial
design and the remedial action--is less than one-half of the total
time taken, from listing, to complete recent remedial actions. 
Nonfederal remedial designs took 2.3 years to complete in 1996, up
from 1.6 years in 1991.  Nonfederal remedial actions took about 2
years in 1996, essentially as long as they took in 1991.  Federal
remedial designs were done in 1 year in 1996, up slightly from about
10 months in 1991.  Federal remedial actions were completed in 1.6
years in 1996, again up slightly from 1.4 years in 1991. 


NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS REPRESENTED
IN THIS REPORT'S FIGURES
========================================================= Appendix III

Figure       1986    1987    1988    1989    1990    1991    1992  1993  1994  1995  1996
---------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ----  ----  ----  ----
1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera     169      67       0      93     224       7       0    26    19    22    10
 l
Federal         0      28       0       8      74       0       0     7    24     6     0

2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera      \a   2,004   2,005   1,640   1,572   1,710      \a    \a    \a    \a    \a
 l

3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera      17      24      17      37      34      51      72    96    80    86    78
 l
Federal        \a      \a      \a      \a       5       3      13    14    20    35    23

4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera     227      77       0     101     197      \a      \a    \a    \a    \a    \a
 l

5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera       8       7       9       7       8      10      31    32    38    40    36
 l

I.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera   3,969   3,704   2,671   2,151   1,566   1,327   1,611  1,36   899   710   753
 l                                                                    1
Federal        73      86     145      68     124      54     236   122   112    72    21

I.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera   1,178   1,295   1,272   1,805   1,971   1,991   1,277   648   551   535   318
 l
Federal        20      42      44      54      54      28      57    62    24    42    24

I.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera      41      52     197       9      23      17      20    32    21     7    18
 l
Federal         2       0       9      43       1       2       4    13    12     2     1

II.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera      82      73     152     130     145     166     118   122   105    92    63
 l
Federal        \a      \a      \a      \a      18      21      42    59    59    75    77

II.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfedera      23      48      69      83      55     103      99   112   113   122   108
 l
Federal        \a      \a      \a      \a       2      17      25    30    48    44    54
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data are not presented for this year because the year is not
included in the corresponding figure. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

The Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight asked us to provide information on the pace of Superfund
cleanups.  He specifically asked that we examine trends in the time
taken to (1) evaluate hazardous waste sites for possible placement on
the NPL and (2) clean up the sites following their listing.  To
accomplish these objectives, we asked EPA to provide us with data
from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS).  This information system is
the official repository of Superfund data and provides integrated
information on the evaluation (preremedial) and remedial programs as
well as the removal program. 

To determine the time taken to evaluate sites for placement on the
NPL, we asked EPA to provide us with data on the sites that had moved
through the various stages of the assessment process from fiscal year
1986 through fiscal year 1996.  For this report, we concentrated our
analysis on the following four phases of each site's evaluation:  (1)
from discovery to placement on the NPL, (2) from discovery to
completion of the preliminary assessment, (3) from discovery to
completion of the site inspection, and (4) from completion of the
inspection to the proposal for listing. 

To determine the time taken to clean up sites placed on the NPL, we
asked EPA to provide data on sites that had progressed through the
stages of the remedial cleanup process.  These data also covered
fiscal years 1986 through 1996.  For this part of the analysis, we
examined data for three principal stages of the cleanup process:  (1)
from the site's placement on the NPL to the selection of a remedy,
(2) from the site's listing to the completion of the remedial design,
and (3) from the site's listing to the completion of the cleanup.  We
also measured the duration of the RI/FS, the remedial design, and the
remedial action and the time from the proposal for listing to the
start of the RI/FS. 

We used a "date of event" (such as NPL listing or completion of
cleanup) analysis in our review to measure the duration of listing
and cleanup phases.  This method classifies sites by the year in
which they completed an activity.  Our approach is an accepted form
of analysis useful for showing the productivity and management of
resources over time.  Another analytical approach would have grouped
sites by their "date of submission" (discovery or listing) and
compared the duration of processing steps among these groups.  This
method can be useful in assessing the effect of policy or operational
changes.  We did not use it in our report because EPA's initiatives
to speed up the Superfund process are so recent.  We also used goals
for the completion of listing or cleanup set out in SARA or EPA
directives as benchmarks for comparison with actual listing and
cleanup times. 

We used EPA's definitions of site discovery and cleanup completion. 
Site discovery for this report is defined as the date of a site's
listing in CERCLIS.  Cleanup completion is defined as the end of the
remedial action phase, that is, the date when, under EPA's
procedures, the designated regional or state official signs a
document indicating that the physical construction is complete for
all remedial and removal work required at a site and, except where
the long-term operation of a remedy is needed, the required cleanup
levels have been attained. 

EPA's management data track a site's projects, or operable units. 
Nonfederal sites average 1.8 operable units, while federal sites
average 5.9 operable units.  Each operable unit generally proceeds
through the individual cleanup stages. 

For example, the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site was placed on the NPL in 1989 as one site.  DOE
subsequently categorized the known or suspected hazardous waste
sources into 16 operable units on the basis of its cleanup
priorities, the type of waste, the unit's geographic location, and
public input.  EPA's records show that cleanups at 3 of Rocky Flats'
16 operable units have been completed, 2 in 1992 and 1 in 1993. 
Tracking the time required to clean up operable units allows EPA to
measure progress without waiting for entire sites to be cleaned up. 
At some complex sites--like Rocky Flats--work may extend well into
the future.  We also examined data for sites where all of the
operable units had been cleaned up. 

While we did not independently verify EPA's data for completeness or
accuracy, EPA took a number of steps to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of its data.  For example, sites without valid
identification numbers or with inappropriate status codes were
excluded.  Also, any times for individual study phases that could not
possibly be valid were excluded from the analysis.  For example,
negative times were excluded.  Also, sites with times exceeding the
mean by more than three standard deviations were eliminated to
prevent a few sites on the high or low end of the spectrum from
skewing the overall results.  These adjustments resulted in the
exclusion of fewer than 1 percent of the sites. 

EPA provided written comments on a draft of this report.  These
comments are discussed and evaluated in the pertinent sections of
this report and are reprinted in appendix V.  We conducted our work
from November 1995 through February 1997 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on EPA's letter dated December 23,
1996. 


   GAO'S COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

1.  The graphs presented in this report represent the actual recorded
time frames for all Superfund sites and projects that moved through
the Superfund processing pipeline from 1986 through 1996.  This
method of analysis is analogous to measuring a company's bottom-line
financial performance over time.  We did not attempt to forecast the
potential effects of EPA's recent initiatives to accelerate the pace
of the Superfund program. 

2.  We have revised the title of the report to more precisely
indicate the report's contents. 

3.  The graphic depiction of trend data in this report is a
historical presentation of the average time spent in the Superfund
process by those sites that were listed and cleaned up in a given
year.  The information responds to the Committee's questions on (1)
how long it took to evaluate and process sites for possible placement
on the NPL from the time of their discovery and (2) how long it took
to clean up sites after they were placed on the NPL.  We agree with
EPA that our presentation of historical data may not fully reflect
the effects of recent policy changes.  Nevertheless, in reviewing
EPA's initiatives to accelerate the pace of Superfund cleanups under
the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) and in discussing this
report with agency personnel, we found that EPA lacks data for
measuring the extent to which these initiatives have been implemented
or the effects of these initiatives.  Our recent report on the
non-time-critical removal component of SACM showed that although
non-time-critical removals have an excellent potential to reduce
costs and expedite the protection of human health and the
environment, the program's full implementation has been constrained
by budgetary and legal issues.  Without adequate data, we were unable
to assess the effects of the new initiatives on reducing the overall
duration of stages in the Superfund process.  EPA told us that it is
currently embarking on an analysis of its recent initiatives to
better communicate to stakeholders and communities the successes of
Superfund. 

4.  We disagree that using the year of listing, rather than the year
of completion, would array the data in a more equitable way.  The
method using the year of listing attributes longer processing times
to sites listed in earlier years and shorter times to more recently
listed sites.  In other words, this method will always show that
recent processing times are an improvement over earlier processing
times.  As sites are completed in the future, average completion
times will grow for each listing year containing these sites. 

5.  EPA's efforts to explore alternatives to listing sites are
noteworthy.  However, the Congress in the 1986 SARA legislation
established a goal for completing evaluations of nonfederal sites
within 4 years of their discovery and for certain federal sites
within 2.5 years.  The agency still maintains these time goals as its
stated policy.  We disagree with EPA's assertion that shortening the
average time taken to evaluate sites for placement on the NPL may not
be desirable.  Placing a site on the NPL associates it with the
nation's most hazardous waste sites.  To be considered for listing, a
site must demonstrate that it has potential adverse effects on human
health or the environment.  For communities near a toxic waste site,
the time taken to investigate and decide on a site's listing may
indeed be relevant and an early decision may be desirable. 

6.  We revised our statement of the act's purpose and included
enforcement activities among the reasons EPA officials cited for long
listing and cleanup time frames. 

7.  According to EPA, the results of its recent changes will not be
complete for 8 to 10 years.  We previously testified that EPA's
current policy initiatives are a step in the right direction to
improving the pace of Superfund cleanups.  However, to effectively
manage the new initiatives, EPA managers cannot wait 8 to 10 years to
determine whether the recent changes work.  EPA managers need data to
measure the effects of the new policy initiatives. 

8.  See comment 4.  EPA's reference to figures 1 and 2 applies to the
two parts of figure 1. 

9.  EPA stated that backlogs of sites awaiting processing increase
the time taken to list and clean up sites over time.  We agree that
backlogs have contributed to increased time frames.  In July 1993, we
reported in Superfund:  Backlog of Unevaluated Federal Facilities
Slows Cleanup Effort (GAO/RCED-93-119) that the existence of
substantial backlogs of unevaluated federal sites was a principal
reason why EPA had not met its statutory deadlines under SARA for
making listing decisions.  We reported that EPA had not placed a high
enough priority on assessing federal facilities and that EPA and
other federal agencies had never established a plan for jointly
responding to SARA's deadlines.  For nonfederal sites awaiting
Superfund listing decisions, SARA provided that EPA should evaluate
such sites for listing, when warranted, within 4 years of SARA's
enactment.  For many sites, this goal was not met.  We believe--and
EPA agrees elsewhere in its comments--that backlogs of sites dating
from the creation of the program are not the only reason for the
increase in completion times. 

10.  The data we used in preparing our charts showing the average
time between site discovery and the completion of various steps
leading to listing did not include extensive periods preceding
CERCLA's enactment in 1980.  Specifically, 200 sites discovered
before October 1, 1969, were excluded from the analysis, and all
sites discovered between October 1, 1969, and September 30, 1979,
were adjusted to set a discovery date of October 1, 1979.  However,
we have revised the charts to begin the trend lines in 1986 to
exclude possibly unrepresentative sites completed early in the
program. 

11.  See comment 4. 

12.  There are extremes at either end of the processing time curve. 
While some sites may take only a few months to list, as EPA
maintains, others take significantly longer than average.  We do not
disagree with EPA's statement that the agency can expedite the
processing of certain sites. 

13.  EPA argues that because it does not have full control over the
time between a site's proposed and final listing, the length of this
period is not a good measure of its performance.  EPA's data indicate
that the time required for this processing step has remained fairly
constant over the life of the program and was not a factor leading to
the increase in processing times.  For example, from 1992 through
1995, it took 1.2 years, on average, to finalize the listing of a
nonfederal site proposed for listing.  This is slightly less than the
1.4 years taken, on average, from 1983 though 1995. 

14.  We included federal facilities listed in 1983 and 1984 because
they were included in CERCLIS.  However, in view of EPA's comment and
the limited number of federal listings until 1990, we have deleted
federal facilities listed before 1990. 

15.  We have revised our report as suggested and deleted the sentence
in question. 

16.  A statement indicating EPA's disagreement with our presentation
of the duration data was added to the agency comments section of the
report.  See comment 4. 

17.  We have deleted the years before 1986 from our analysis to
eliminate possibly atypical sites that were completed early in the
history of the Superfund program.  Also, we have added the data in
appendix III to the report to supplement the trend lines shown in the
report's figures and indicate for the reader how many sites or
operable units were tracked in these figures. 

18.  See comment 4. 

19.  Sentence deleted. 

20.  See comment 4. 

21.  See comment 17.  Also, we note that our report does present data
on "discrete milestones." For example, it presents information on the
times taken to complete preliminary assessments, site inspections,
the selection of remedies, and other steps in the Superfund process. 

22.  The data mentioned by EPA from figure 3 represent the average
time taken to clean up 17 distinct operable units in 1986.  The data
in figure II.2 represent the average time taken to select a remedy
for 82 other distinct operable units for that same year.  These data
are not inconsistent or inappropriate, as EPA implies, because they
represent two distinct universes. 

23.  See comment 3. 

24.  The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) 1994 study is based on
"estimated" average durations from the proposal for listing through
the completion of construction, while our data represent actual
durations for operable units and sites from the final listing through
the completion of the remedial action.  The main finding of CBO's
report was that the average time between the proposal for listing and
the completion of construction will be at least 12 years for the
first 1,249 sites.  CBO obtained its data through interviews with
remedial project managers.  The managers estimated that the
completion time for the nonfederal sites proposed for listing from
1981 through 1983 would average 12.9 years, while the completion time
for the nonfederal sites proposed from 1984 through 1992 would
average 9.6 years. 

CBO's report said that the difference between the two estimates (of
12.9 years and 9.6 years)

"may merely be evidence of the overoptimism suspected by officials at
EPA headquarters.  The sites listed more recently have generally not
progressed as far through the Superfund pipeline; for example, only
16 percent of those with actual or estimated completion dates had
been finished by 1993, compared with 31 percent of the early sites."

25.  We continue to believe that EPA's efforts to expedite cleanups
are steps in the right direction.  However, enough time has now
elapsed for EPA to evaluate the progress and effects of the program
to date.  Over 4 years have elapsed since EPA formally initiated
SACM, and over 2 years have elapsed since the agency proceeded to
fully implement the program.  As indicated in this report, our review
of non-time-critical removals showed limited use of this SACM
component in EPA's regions. 

26.  We have revised our report to indicate in the agency comments
section that EPA regards factors such as budget shortfalls,
legislative and administrative weaknesses in the current program, and
a continuing influx of large and complex sites as barriers that
undermine its efforts to increase the pace of assessments and
cleanups. 

27.  See comment 9. 

28.  The presumptive remedy for municipal landfills was issued by EPA
in September 1993.  An EPA directive with the same date stated that
presumptive remedies were expected to be used at all appropriate
sites.  The time savings cited by EPA were achieved at three pilot
sites that used the landfill presumptive remedy in the spring of
1992.  EPA's December 1996 annual report on Superfund administrative
reforms stated that the agency is beginning to collect and analyze
data on the use of presumptive remedies.  At the time of our review,
no adequate data were available to assess the effects of presumptive
remedies on the time taken to complete the Superfund process. 

29.  We added EPA's estimate of the time savings attributable to
these reforms to the report. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

James F.  Donaghy, Assistant Director
Robert J.  Tice, Evaluator-in-Charge
Larry D.  Turman, Evaluator
Pauline Lichtenfeld, Evaluator
Mitchell B.  Karpman, Senior Operations Research Analyst
Annette Wright, Graphics Analyst
Bess Eisenstadt, Communications Analyst
Lynne L.  Goldfarb, Publishing Adviser


*** End of document. ***